What is going on in this forum?

[catharina]

A billion jillion thanks to you - or thereabouts.

 

[moosears]

With such a well thought out post as this, I really wish you would take part much more often. There has been discussion on this on another thread, and the conclusion by all is that there is much too much personal attacks going on. My last post simply suggested that when such occurs, that we simply respond by telling the person that while such is posted on their part that no response will be given, and that they will remain in our prayers. I would then also request theirs. We shall see what this will do. But please, get more active in the forum. We need reasoned responses such as yours.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Deep thanks to you Deacon Ed B! It seems that you and I are browsing the same threads. Humble minds think alike (lol)! I agree also that a non-response to an attack is the way to go. If an attack is ignored then it gives time for that person to reflect on what has just been done and possibly repent with an apology or leave the thread altogether. At any rate humble charity should reign in these forums and visceral should not even be acknowledged. People come here to find re-assurance, consolation, affirmation and general answers to their problems not to get slaughtered.

Yours in Christ, Wesley.

 

[catharina]

I don’t know who can judge a Pope. I would assume it would only be history and God.

The problem is that non-traditionalists are not emulating the Pope. They are using every caveat to avoid his teachings, knowing that the Latin Rite Mass should at least somewhat resemble the Latin Rite Mass at the Vatican.

People who argue against the Novus Ordo are not necessarily disobeying the Pope. It depends on their tone and the reasons behind their stances.

Who is actually obedient? It’s not the anti-traditionalists. If they were actually obedient, their Masses would follow the protocols established by the the Church, which forbid a good chunk of what we see defended here.

There are plenty of bishops who are at odds with the Holy Father. I have to take the Holy Father’s side.

Categorizing people - and Masses - is an extreme approach.

In fact, the Holy Father’s stance is to offer the Church two forms of the Mass.
Each form is entirely valid and in my view, each form is beautiful.
For those of us born a good while ago, each form is easily understood.
The Latin Mass is as simple for me as the ability to breathe.
I can say the very same about the newer form of the Mass too.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Each form is entirely valid and in my view, each form is beautiful. For those of us born a good while ago, each form is easily understood. The Latin Mass is as simple for me as the ability to breathe. I can say the very same about the newer form of the Mass too.

 

[CradleCath]

I don’t think it’s just the converts. I think it’s just about everyone who has been catechized since the 60’s & the Church owes many an apology concerning that.

At the same time, many of us also cherish the good things about our Protestant past. There is no reason for us to cast off like filthy rags all these wonderful things–Gospel music, Christian rock music, giving a word of testimony, clapping hands, lifting hands in worship, emotional responses to music and prayers, etc. These practices are NOT filthy rags and they do not keep us from being “good Catholics.”

Of course the music, clapping, lifting hands aren’t “filthy rags” & no one has said that. I learned to play “Rock of Ages”, “I Come to the Garden Alone” & “His Eye is on the Sparrow” at my Protestant aunt’s piano with her sitting beside me. I love those songs & sang them to my babies as Lullibies. They don’t however belong in the Mass, which has special songs written just for it. I learned “Oh Mary, will it Always Be” in high school. It was the Sacred Heart order’s special hymn. However, we didn’t sing it during Mass, just during the procession after Mass held in my schools chapel & during the month of May.

As for the other things, the emotional clapping & raising one’s arms in adoration, personal testimony…well these things make you a “good Protestant”

While it’s never once in my 66 yrs. even occured to me to look for God in another faith, I really think that If I did, I would not expect that other faith to adapt their service to my own experience in the Catholic Church. I would have no right to do that. That would be like I thought I was entitled to a little bit of that faith & a little bit of the Catholic faith…all mixed together & resulting in mish-mash that is** no** faith.

You must also remember that when Martin Luther created his Chruch, John Calvin & the rest…their music disparaged the Catholic Church. New musice HAD to be written to state the beliefs of the Chuch. For instance, the last verse of Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus, because Catholics have a nuanced view of merit, and the expression “all-sufficient merit” has been used apologetically against the Catholic view.We believe that Christ opened the doors of heaven for us, He was our redeemer & savior, but to gain salvation, we have our “works”. Feeding the poor, following His Laws as best we can & taking an active part in stopping these wholesale Abortions, honoring Mary & the Saints & etc., etc.

 

[estesbob]

I am a traditional Catholic. I adhere strictly to the teachings of the Church, go to Mass I several times a week, and believe the Catholic Church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ. I believe in the real presence, confession and a necessity of following not only the 10 Commandments but also the seven commandment of the Chruch also. I believe homosexuality, abortion, and contraception are all grievous sins… However I enjoy the ordinary form of the Mass and do not think it should be done away with. If the Tridentine mass was offered regularly I would , at the most, attend a couple of times a year, I don’t think the reinstitution of the Tridentine Mass to the exclusion of the ordinary form is either necessary or prudent,

Because of this I am often attacked in this forum as being a liberal cafeteria Catholic. And therein lies the problem in this forum. Way too many people define traditional Catholic as one who wants the return to the way the Church was before Vatican II and that any any variance from this is apostasy .

 

[moosears]

I can understand everyone’s concern over the form of the Mass and through the last 40 years there has been a lot of confusion as well as an endless supply of rage on both sides of tradition in the Church and Her sacraments. That being said, the Holy Ghost is still the soul of the Church and He still guides Her. Rather than vocalizing our opinions so loudly towards one another why don’t we pray much more fervently for proper reform and submit ourselves to the Magisterium. This post in no way is intended to correct anyone’s thinking or resist any intelligent discourse but it is up to the Apostolic authorities to debate on the subject. Any debate among the laity seems to turn into a stone throwing match and is completely counterproductive. So let us have love for one another and pray that each one of us is found worthy, one day, to adore, in the Celestial Court, the Lamb who was slain for the sins of the world.

My love and heartfelt affection goes out to everyone who posts on these forums. God bless you all and may we all gather for the Eternal Liturgy with the nine choirs of angels on the last day. Wesley.

 

[BSHoop96]

I understand the point you’re making, but I’m curious as to what evidence exists that the source of liturgical innovations is from evangelical converts and charismatic movements. I’m sure you mean no offense, but I think it’s a bit of an unfair statement to make. We could just as easily blame dissident, cradle-Catholic priests and nuns from the 60’s and 70’s for these liturgical “innovations” (though of course, I don’t have any evidence for that either).

My point is, it is difficult (if not impossible) to p(name removed by moderator)oint the source of a particular innovation. So why blame the converts? It’s similar to the sentiments in another thread (started by Cat, no less ) on “Protestant Hymns”: We cannot blame the problems in the liturgy or problems in liturgical music on the Protestants or the converts from Protestantism. In addition to unnecessarily alienating converts as some sort of subset of “not quite Catholic yet” Catholics, it is also oftentimes inaccurate.

Maybe your experience is different than mine, but I’ve not run into any converts that are anxious to change the Mass to be more like their Protestant services. In fact, quite the opposite. Most of the converts I know are, like yourself, quite concerned that Mass be celebrated properly.

I’m sorry if you think I am trying to assign “blame”. I am trying to point out a possible reason. That it was not something that the Church herself started.

Even dissident priests or nuns didn’t wake up one morning saying I think I will clap my hands, raise them up, and shout to the Lord, whatever…there was an influence from somewhere. Things just don’t usually “pop up” without having some starting point and how can something like that be p(name removed by moderator)ointed?

I have read the same line of thinking in other places, but I’m sorry, I have been reading so much I cannot tell you where. Maybe I can find it.

You will notice in my post I said “I think” they may have come from…not…’'those horrible protestants did this and it’s all there fault!"

If you think about it, it’s not such a leap to assume there is protestant influence. We have a large number of converts (which is great) and many of the things Cat mentioned are things very typical of many evangelical/protestant churches. Cat herself, is proposing that they are *totally appropriate *to the Mass. She makes mention of other converts in one of her posts that are the same. I bet if you could ask people that participate in this way you would find that most have evangelical backgrounds. That is not a condemnation…that is what they are used to…

I think that Cat and many others are truly sincere but because in their past denominations it was totally acceptable does not mean it is appropriate for the Mass.

 

[catharina]

Absolutely not. The problem is when one revolting comment becomes an excuse for a cycle of mutual abuse.

We don’t have control of those who make revolting comments. Only the moderators do. We do have control of our own posts, though. In fact, I would argue that if we respond in kind to revolting posters, they have become the ones who are in control of us. They will have been given control of this forum.

If you were at a dinner party with friends and someone made a revolting comment, you would have several choices. Among them are:
a) “What kind of idiot would make such a revolting comment! I demand you take that back this minute! For that matter, who the h*** invited you, anyway?!?”
b) “I beg your pardon?”
c) Stony silence, followed by studied refusal to recognize the offender’s comment, by continuing the conversation as if the comment had never been made and the offender was not even present.
d) “Bob, Bob, I know the topic upsets you, but did you really have to put it that way at the dinner table? We’re in polite company, here.”

I’m saying that (a) doesn’t help. It will, in fact, leave your hosts wishing they had not invited either of you.

The others are variations that might each be called for, depending on the circumstances.

If we want this forum to be civilized, we need to behave under the pretense that we are on a civilized forum, and act accordingly. We should not allow the bad behavior of others to excuse ourselves for posting in an uncharitable manner. IMHO, it simply isn’t necessary, and in fact makes the problem worse.

Yet I could never choose C.
Nor would I recommend C to others.
Here’s why.

My own conscience would forbid me to allow a statement that compares the Holy to the vulgar to stand unopposed. For me, walking away would be a sin of omission. It can’t be a hardship of any kind for me to state: “All Catholics know, by faith, that using such terms to denigrate the Holy is always unacceptable.” Then I could walk away. I am SO grateful that I wasn’t on either thread where the Mass (in both forms) was insulted by way of analogy - because yes, those kinds of statments are so wounding. I hate to see things like that posted at all.

 

[BSHoop96]

IWho is actually obedient? It’s not the anti-traditionalists. If they were actually obedient, their Masses would follow the protocols established by the the Church, which forbid a good chunk of what we see defended here.

I’m not sure I understand you here. **Do you think those of us who attend an NO parish with a priest that **does follow the protocols are disobedient?

Plus, I might add that a lay person in the parish does not have the ability to change what the priest is doing. They must go thru the Bishop or find a different church.

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t know who can judge a Pope. I would assume it would only be history and God.

The problem is that some non-traditionalists are not emulating the Pope. They are using every caveat to avoid his teachings, knowing that the Latin Rite Mass should at least somewhat resemble the Latin Rite Mass at the Vatican.

People who argue against the Novus Ordo are not necessarily disobeying the Pope. It depends on their tone and the reasons behind their stances.

Who is actually obedient? It’s not some of the anti-traditionalists. If they were actually obedient, their Masses would follow the protocols established by the the Church, which forbid a good chunk of what we see defended here.

There are plenty of bishops who are at odds with the Holy Father. I have to take the Holy Father’s side.

I know it’s easy to generalize (just ask my wife, I do it all the time ), but I think it would be helpful not to paint with too broad a brush (hence my suggested modifications above in red). I suppose some would consider me a “non-traditionalist” (though hopefully not an “anti-traditionalist”) as I’ve never even been to a TLM (there’s none nearby that is celebrated with any degree of regularity). But I certainly don’t advocate chucking the rubrics aside or just trying to find as much wiggle room as possible in anything the pope says. I absolutely agree that the rubrics should be followed.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m sorry if you think I am trying to assign “blame”. I am trying to point out a possible reason. That it was not something that the Church herself started.

Even dissident priests or nuns didn’t wake up one morning saying I think I will clap my hands, raise them up, and shout to the Lord, whatever…there was an influence from somewhere. Things just don’t usually “pop up” without having some starting point and how can something like that be p(name removed by moderator)ointed?

I have read the same line of thinking in other places, but I’m sorry, I have been reading so much I cannot tell you where. Maybe I can find it.

You will notice in my post I said “I think” they may have come from…not…’'those horrible protestants did this and it’s all there fault!"

If you think about it, it’s not such a leap to assume there is protestant influence. We have a large number of converts (which is great) and many of the things Cat mentioned are things very typical of many evangelical/protestant churches. Cat herself, is proposing that they are *totally appropriate *to the Mass. She makes mention of other converts in one of her posts that are the same. I bet if you could ask people that participate in this way you would find that most have evangelical backgrounds. That is not a condemnation…that is what they are used to…

I think that Cat and many others are truly sincere but because in their past denominations it was totally acceptable does not mean it is appropriate for the Mass.

I understand that you’re not trying to angrily point fingers at other people, and you made your point quite charitably. However, I think such statements that cite a “protestant influence” are, at the very least, not helpful, and, at most, harmful. Most of the times such observations are based on anecdotal evidence and what seems logical. As you said, “If you think about it, it’s not such a leap to assume there is protestant influence.” The conclusion is based solely on “it seems reasonable”, not on any actual evidence.

Perhaps I’m belaboring too small a detail, but I really think that such statments can be harmful as they paint an inaccurate picture of the situation. For one, the term “Protestant” is far too broad to be meaningful. It is used to describe any non-Catholic Christians whether they be Anglicans or Fundamentalists. Secondly, I cannot think of why things like giving testimony or clapping hands is something that is inherently “Protestant”. I’ve even seen non-Christians clap their hands from time to time.

It seems like the only purpose of such a statement is to convey that this or that should not be done by Catholics. Obviously, if you are Catholic, you don’t want to be seen as “Protestant”. So by associating such activity with a “Protestant” mentality, it serves as a nice logical shortcut to tell people that this or that is not appropriate for Catholics to do. I think a better approach would be to explain why this or that conflicts with Catholic practice.

 

[ibkc]

It seems like the only purpose of such a statement is to convey that this or that should not be done by Catholics. Obviously, if you are Catholic, you don’t want to be seen as “Protestant”. So by associating such activity with a “Protestant” mentality, it serves as a nice logical shortcut to tell people that this or that is not appropriate for Catholics to do. I think a better approach would be to explain why this or that conflicts with Catholic practice.

That has been done, several times, in this thread and others, including by the poster you are addressing.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I’m not sure I understand you here. **Do you think those of us who attend an NO parish with a priest that **does ****follow the protocols are disobedient?

Plus, I might add that a lay person in the parish does not have the ability to change what the priest is doing. They must go thru the Bishop or find a different church.

You’re right. I didn’t state that a lay person who goes to the NO, or even the NO when the protocols aren’t followed, is disobedient.

I don’t use terms like “disobedient.” Everybody on this forum is pretty sure of his or her faith, and more than likely has a priest to teach them obedience.

What I’m talking about is the refusal, ideologically, to acknowledge and accept what the Vatican, the Pope, and other authorities have written.

This forum shouldn’t really be a discussion of any actual people, only of liturgy.

 

[Matt33]

Matt, I have to ask: have you ever seen such things at any Catholic Mass?
I only ask because I’m 62 yrs old and I’ve never seen anything remotely like it.

This is common in my city… Boise Idaho at life teen masses and even at say, an 11am or 10am mass in several parishes.

 

[palmas85]

One would have to be exceedingly challenged in any number of ways not to realize that “NO Mass”, “NO parish”, “NO priest”, etc. is inherently offensive. It’s a no-brainer.

Actually though I think most are aware – they just enjoy being offensive. Sad commentary about any Christian, yet true.

NO ONE would be offended at the use of Mass of Pope Paul VI, Pauline Mass, Ordinary Form of the Mass or simply OF – all of which are actually used by the Church. So please don’t play games with “Or I change today and find another’s objection tomorrow.? Nope.” – it’s too transparent.

No worries. I’ll just consider the source when I see it being used in the future.

Never having used the term Novus Ordo myself, I prefer to use Pauline Rite, I still fail to see how the term could in any way be offensive to anyone. All it means is New Order, which is exactly what the Pauline Rite is, a new order of the Mass. Nothing bad or disrespectful about that at all. It is merely descriptive thats all. And it was used by no less a figure than Paul VI himself at least on various occasions.

As I recall we used to call the Pauline Rite the New Mass which is essentially the same as Novus Ordo. We also never called the Traditional Mass anything other than the Mass or the Old Mass.

I have seen anguished cries about the use of the term Novus Ordo for a while now, but I have yet to see anyone coherently explain why it is offensive to anyone or could be offensive to anyone.

So maybe you can help me out. Why is the term as you say inherently offensive?

 

[PrayforMallory]

Categorizing people - and Masses - is an extreme approach.

In fact, the Holy Father’s stance is to offer the Church two forms of the Mass.
Each form is entirely valid and in my view, each form is beautiful.
For those of us born a good while ago, each form is easily understood.
The Latin Mass is as simple for me as the ability to breathe.
I can say the very same about the newer form of the Mass too.

I’m not categorizing people, I’m generalizing about a perspective. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be offered the Novus Ordo. I do say, and will always say, that it is an inferior liturgy, due to a paucity of theological content.

The Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass are obviously very different liturgies. If they weren’t we wouldn’t be having these discussions so much.

Obviously the New Mass is easy to understand. It’s in the vernacular and the prayers are simplified.

Here’s a passage by a young priest who writes under the pseudonym of Edward Faber:

“The amusing thing is that conservatives are intent on upholding the authority of the Pauline Missal against the traditionalists. One well known priest once wrote, “I actually see no real difference between the two missals,” which was as great discredit to his reputation as a scholar. The line is that the New Mass is not really New, despite the fact that a careful reading of Bugnini’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy reveals that it is all new and that the so-called restorations are questionable indeed and the work was written in fact as a justification for the unjustifiable.1 The liturgists realize the New Mass is new, the liberals realize the New Mass is new, everyone in the Church realizes the New Mass is new except for the conservatives.”

 

[EasterJoy]

Yet I could never choose C.
Nor would I recommend C to others.
Here’s why.

My own conscience would forbid me to allow a statement that compares the Holy to the vulgar to stand unopposed. For me, walking away would be a sin of omission. It can’t be a hardship of any kind for me to state: “All Catholics know, by faith, that using such terms to denigrate the Holy is always unacceptable.” Then I could walk away. I am SO grateful that I wasn’t on either thread where the Mass (in both forms) was insulted by way of analogy - because yes, those kinds of statments are so wounding. I hate to see things like that posted at all.

In a particular case, yes, there is a best answer. There are times when silence can be taken as tacit approval, or at least as the absence of disapproval. In that case, some sort of response is necessary, of course. Still, there are times when silence is not a sin of omission.

Let us say that the post was an insult not of the Mass, but an unfair insult aimed at you. Sometimes the best thing to do is to just ignore it. If someone else wants to come to your defence, so be it, but otherwise, if there is no question about the hostile intent, it can be best to refuse to engage someone like that in conversation.

Another example might be something that is so obviously beyond the pale, so obviously an out-of-the-blue attempt to bait, so much so that it is essentially a non-sequitor within the conversation, that the best answer is no answer at all. I’m talking here about comments that could not be made except by a sworn enemy of the Church. (I would not think that even giving an example of what I mean would be appropriate. I’m talking *really *beyond the pale.)

At a dinner party, the guests would reward the comment with stony silence and the hosts would escort the offender to the door. On this forum, you would not respond directly, but would of course report the post immediately to the moderator.

 

[Adonis33]

Matt, I have to ask: have you ever seen such things at any Catholic Mass?
I only ask because I’m 62 yrs old and I’ve never seen anything remotely like it.

I’ve seen such things at Mass, quite a bit actually.

 

[Sarabande]

I have no investment (positive or negative) in any particular usage.
PS - For the record, you’re the first I’ve heard object to the use of NO shorthand.-

This is the first thread where I experienced that the usage of NO was thought of as a dirty term as well on the forums and in real life. I’m actually surprised that it is considered offensive.
In real life, (meaning outside of forums) prior to maybe 6-8 months ago, I have always heard of the mass as the NO mass or the Novus Ordo and the TLM for the Latin Mass. At my parish we always referred to our “Latin NO Mass” which has been going on for at least 30+ years. (TLM not offered yet.) Then more recently, I’m seeing new references to EF and OF, so I don’t mind using those references as well.

As a person of a racially mixed background, I’ve experienced real damaging and offensive terminology and treatment towards me, my siblings and my mother. I’ve experienced truly offensive remarks which at times when I was younger wished that I was not who I was - totally hurting my poor mother. So, having experiencing that, I’ve thought about this, and I still can’t see how “NO” ie. Novus Ordo would be considered offensive. I’ve known other Catholics who literally had crosses burnt on their lawns back in the 1950s in the northeast because they were the only Catholics in town and my father and his brothers being called “Papists” in a very derogatory manner due to the fact they and one other family were the only Catholics on the street. (I’ve never heard the word papist used as a nice term.) Now those things are truly offensive and damaging. All that NO it mean is New Order and was never used, to the best of my knowledge and experience, as a derogatory term. I’ve never met a person in real life who was a offended by that.

Now whoever was offended by that on this thread, can’t have his/her feelings negated, and I’m sorry that he/she feels this way. Perhaps he/she did experienced it used in a bad way and that’s a shame.