What is going on in this forum?

[BSHoop96]

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.

And how, pray tell, do you think we would have an actual study on this? I think the fact that I was having the discussion with someone from an evangelical background, who was also talking about other evangelicals in her parish, is rather telling in itself.

In trying to explain that it does not fit the Catholic Mass, it is not illogical to point out that it is understandable that these discussions come up, as we have so many converts with a background in evangelical churches where this is very common. Then stating, while it is perfectly fine in a protestant, or non-Catholic if you prefer, service, it is not fine in a Catholic Mass and offering some insights as to why. I will readily admit that a couple of other posters did the job of explaining why much better than I.

You are advocating political correctness for the sake of political correctness. You also seem to have the idea that protestant is considered a bad word. I don’t think so. My family is not Catholic. I was raised in a military family. The base offered a “Catholic” Mass and a “protestant” service. We went to a protestant service. Protestant, meaning in this instance, “everybody else” besides the Catholics. Now that I am a Catholic, I still say protestant meaning no disrespect whatsoever.

Anyway, sorry to go off on you a bit. Now we are just belaboring the point so I will stop.

 

[BSHoop96]

Boldface mine–I have read through ALL of my posts on this thread.

I have NOT proposed that any of these things are totally appropriate for the Mass.

I have NOT said this!

I have said over and over that it is up to the BISHOP to determine what is and what is NOT appropriate for the Holy Mass. I have said this on other threads many times throughout CAF–it is up to the BISHOP, not the laymen like me. Thank God.

This is why these forums get testy–because we do not pay attention to what others actually write, then we make untrue or spurious assumptions about them, and then we spread our “errors of interpretation” to others on the Forum. Then others decide that certain posters are “trouble makers”, and then the hostility starts.

I apologize for my hostility at the moment, but if there’s one thing that yanks my chain, it’s being falsely accused of writing things that I never wrote.

BTW, to those who don’t think these things are appropriate for Mass–do you also agree that CRYING is inappropriate, since it is NOT part of the Liturgy? Do youthink that all those people who start spontaneously crying during hymns, Scripture reading, after receiving Jesus in Holy Communion, etc., should be rebuked for adding to the liturgy?

I would be thrown out of Massat least once a month, and so would my husband and so would many converts–we are the ones who often spontaneously start crying because we are so emotionally touched by the beauty and truth of the Mass.

In fact, a month ago, I was so caught up in Father’s beautiful prayer (out of the Sacramentary, not something extemporaneous) before the Sanctus that I totally forgot to give the musical cue for the Sanctus (I play piano). I was just standing there with my eyes closed and my hands folded. It was really really QUIET in the church, and I opened my eyes and saw Father staring at me, and then he kindly began reciting the Sanctus, and the people followed. So should I be chastized as “tampering with the liturgy” for allowing my human emotions to interfere with the liturgy?! I certainly hope not.

Hand-raising, believe it or not, is an emotional reaction that some people have when they are deeply worshipping God. I don’t know what some of you think it is, but I think you are talking about a different thing than I am. You’re making it sound like some kind of perversion or show trick. I’m talking about an emotional reaction that some people have when they are worshipping the Lord. In I Timothy 2: 8, St. Paul says, “I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.” Sounds good to me.

Cat,

Just to be clear this is what you said that iniated my first response.

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."

You stated that there is no reason to cast them off. So this obviously meant to many of us that you apparently think they are fine. In the Mass. We chose to respond with the reasons that we did not think so.

Yes, you did say it is up to the Bishop. We are aware of that.

 

[palmas85]

As a Traditionalist and a convert I am also offended by the idea that Converts are part of the problem. think of it this way. Cradles Allowed this to come in. Converts in my experience tend to be the best Traditionalists because we CHOSE the faith, we weren’t alter boys growing up becuase our mommies wanted us to be, we didn’t go through confirmation classes at high school to please our parents, we broke with our parents, we long for what the Church was and can be.
Talk to a CINO about the real presents or reverence then talk to a convert. We chose Gods Church and we would defend it with our lives because in effect we died to our old lives just to come here. We go against our culture we go against our families. We sit in pews of our own because our friends and families dont, we forgo family BBQs to be at Church on Easter. We teach the youth in our parish so that we can bring about reverance and love for the eucharist and God’s Church, we fight for a strength and a Truth in a time of realitivism. We are the future of the Church we are the reason that some things that were lost (Tradition) are now being found!

Wow, I guess you really put us in our place didn’t you?:crying: . You know all those years that I served I didn’t know it was because it was because my mom wanted me too, although I’m sure she did. For some unknown and probably heretical reason I honestly thought it was my decision to do so. I also didn’t know that I went to catechism classes in order to please my parents either, as my father couldn’t have cared less if I did or not. Again wrong. And you know, even though I thought I knew about the Real Presence, I undoubtedly did not.

What a revelation.

Now thanks to you, and others like you, who, how did you explain it, are the future of the Church? I know that I have been wrong all these years. Now I know that what I believed in and practiced wasn’t Catholicism at all but rather some Freudian desire to please my parents.

Lets just be thankful that we now have you and other like minded people on board to set all of us dinosaurs straight:thumbsup:

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.”

Excellent points!

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

This may be just me, but I am not so impressed by sentiments attibuted to priests who publish under pseudonyms. For all I know, the author isn’t even a Catholic, let alone a priest. I’m not saying that he isn’t. I’m saying that if this priest will not identify himself, there is no way to know. The contention that an anonymous source is a priest adds essentially nothing, IMHO.

I would tell him what I will say to you: like what you like, argue what you like, but please be respectful enough to use wording and implications other than “inferior” when referring to the ordinary form of the liturgy which is, like the EF, the source and summit of Christian life, which is the Lord’s Supper, which is the Holy Mass, which is the Holy Sacrifice, which is the Holy and Divine Liturgy, which is always offered by Christ Himself, the Eternal High Priest of the New Covenant, at which the Eucharistic Sacrifice offered *is *Christ Himself, living and glorious, present in a true, real, and substantial manner: His Body, His Blood, with His Soul and His Divinity.

IMHO, it would be preferable that you say, if you think it so, that the text of the EF is more theologically dense, that the ritual form makes the reality which is present more obvious in some way, that, for whatever reasons you have, you think it objectively true that of all valid forms of the Mass it is the preferable choice…whatever you think. It would be preferable though, if, always and everywhere, we always and clearly gave each and every valid form of the rite the full respect due to it on account of the infinite graces it makes present.

That’s all *we’re *saying.

Hi EasterJoy,

I think a distinction needs to be made (which sometimes is not) between the form of the liturgy and the actual Eucharist itself. To me, the Eucharist itself is like the diamond in a diamond ring. It is infinitely valuable because it is the timeless presentation of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross and the offering of His body and blood to us. And thus it should never be denigrated at all but only praised and met with infinite thanks.

The form of the liturgy itself, apart from the Holy Eucharist, I would liken to the band that holds the diamond in place. Without it there would not be a ring, so it is essential. However, a diamond ring can have various bands, ranging from beautiful gold to rusted copper. Both bands would be “valid” in the sense that they would both hold the diamond in place and thus serve their function. However, if a band looks like it’s made of copper people might start questioning if the diamond itself is really a diamond.

Hence I take critiques of the NO, as PrayforMallory mentioned, to be critiques of the band, not the diamond. However, when the distinction is not made (or readers themselves don’t make it) some people take it as an attack on the Holy Eucharist itself.

Or they may take it as an attack on the Holy Spirit Himself as they believe the Holy Spirit is supposed to guarantee a beautiful band (functional, sure, but not necessarily beautiful).

Thus I would say traditionalists critique the “band” or form of the liturgy often because they recognize the infinite worth of the diamond and thus want it in a setting which is proper for it and brings out its full brilliance. For an example of this see von Hildebrand’s article in my signature link below

God bless.

 

[BSHoop96]

Hi EasterJoy,

The form of the liturgy itself, apart from the Holy Eucharist, I would liken to the band that holds the diamond in place. Without it there would not be a ring, so it is essential. However, a diamond ring can have various bands, ranging from beautiful gold to rusted copper. Both bands would be “valid” in the sense that they would both hold the diamond in place and thus serve their function. However, if a band looks like it’s made of copper people might start questioning if the diamond itself is really a diamond.

Hence I take critiques of the NO, as PrayforMallory mentioned, to be critiques of the band, not the diamond. However, when the distinction is not made (or readers themselves don’t make it) some people take it as an attack on the Holy Eucharist itself.

Or they may take it as an attack on the Holy Spirit Himself as they believe the Holy Spirit is supposed to guarantee a beautiful band (functional, sure, but not necessarily beautiful).

Thus I would say traditionalists critique the “band” or form of the liturgy often because they recognize the infinite worth of the diamond and thus want it in a setting which is proper for it and brings out its full brilliance. For an example of this see von Hildebrand’s article in my signature link below

God bless.

I thought this was an interesting comparison.

I read your link and I will say he made some very good points.

 

[Matt33]

Wow, I guess you really put us in our place didn’t you?:crying: . You know all those years that I served I didn’t know it was because it was because my mom wanted me too, although I’m sure she did. For some unknown and probably heretical reason I honestly thought it was my decision to do so. I also didn’t know that I went to catechism classes in order to please my parents either, as my father couldn’t have cared less if I did or not. Again wrong. And you know, even though I thought I knew about the Real Presence, I undoubtedly did not.

What a revelation.

Now thanks to you, and others like you, who, how did you explain it, are the future of the Church? I know that I have been wrong all these years. Now I know that what I believed in and practiced wasn’t Catholicism at all but rather some Freudian desire to please my parents.

Lets just be thankful that we now have you and other like minded people on board to set all of us dinosaurs straight:thumbsup:

Drop the sarcasm. It is ugly. I was not refering to you AT ALL. Thank you for your service, I am just refering to some that are like that. Whoa there settle down. Letes just be nice OK.

 

[redrosetea]

this thread is very ugly…It’s about as Christian as the stuff that each side did in N Ireland…

 

[palmas85]

Drop the sarcasm. It is ugly. I was not refering to you AT ALL. Thank you for your service, I am just refering to some that are like that. Whoa there settle down. Letes just be nice OK.

Yeah, lets be nice. Practice what you preach instead of smearing millions of people, even if you are the future of the Church.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I thought this was an interesting comparison.

I read your link and I will say he made some very good points.

Yea, in my opinion von Hildebrand is one of the best when it comes to writing on the liturgy. He also had an excellent book on “Celibacy and the Crisis of Faith” which any Catholic ought to love who believes a celibate priesthood is good (even if it is only a discipline). And he talks about the liturgy in that book as well.

Here’s a link to the book where a customer has written a good overview of von Hildebrand’s points on celibacy:

amazon.com/gp/product/0819904287/ref=cm_rdp_product

God bless.

 

[tr1954]

Have I gone insane, or is this the most inaccurately named forum on the internet? Is there ever a thread here about traditional things, other than to argue that tradition does not exist or is an incomprehensible and meaningless word (except when it is used to describe the OF of course), or that all traditionalists are going to hell for judging other people or actually disagreeing with the endless stream of anti-traditionalist threads? Are there any traditionalists on this forum at all? And are there any other Catholics who can disagree in a civil way, refraining from blanket judgments and without flooding the forum with the same post over and over again?

Post after post all I see are “I am traditional because I hate tradition” threads followed by streams of one line drive-by “you go girl” follow ups, sprinkled with warnings that the jackals that are fellow God fearing Catholics will soon swoop in to savage them and eat their young. I have seen the most self-serving, self-congratulatory pablum in this forum over the last few weeks, and it just keeps coming and coming with nothing to say at all, other than to thank God that they are such better Christians than those traditionalists. Nothing of substance can be discussed because it is all drowned out in the endless streams of back slapping and droning calls for peace and love, laced of course with judgment against fellow Catholics who have the audacity to actually disagree with them and thereby disturb the proper peace which should exist here. And it would exist too if only everybody would admit that all Masses are equal in all ways except that the OF is better. Discussion and debate can be very healthy and productinve, but I don’t see how that can be expected to happen in this environment with the attitudes I have seen exhibited here.

First, this is the most hilarious tread I have found on this forum! I am LMAO as I read the responses to cothrige question; “what is going on in this forum”? The posters joined the original complaint, and started showing how “the other guy” was attacking the Church, the Pope, the Bishops…

But then, as I was reading further, slowly another fact revealed itself…these people who do the bashing and the arguing, are almost all CONVERTS! By now the humorous side of the event started showing itself…from now on it was a matter of time to find that most, if not all the converts are former protestants, so an answer to the original question started to emerge…question: what do Protestants do best???..They argue!! LMAO!

As the discussion deepened, some of the pre-conversion bickering started to emerge among some of the converts…just like before, they attacked each other mercilessly, and as more and more “converts” joined in, the tread was anything but 'traditional"…if we look at the substance. But it was traditional in everything else…the arguing reminded me of those good old days, when in the name of religion we called each others all kind of names, just to show that the “truth” was on our side!! LOL!

I wonder if there are original Catholics who participated in these arguments?..Judging by the answers, not many. But who needs those who can’t contribute…right? I would like to propose a change in the title of this tread…“The bickering converts” would be more appropriate…Hehe…

And finally, let me make a confession…I am a convert too, so please, don’t be too harsh on me…LOL!

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The form of the liturgy itself, apart from the Holy Eucharist, I would liken to the band that holds the diamond in place. Without it there would not be a ring, so it is essential. However, a diamond ring can have various bands, ranging from beautiful gold to rusted copper. Both bands would be “valid” in the sense that they would both hold the diamond in place and thus serve their function. However, if a band looks like it’s made of copper people might start questioning if the diamond itself is really a diamond. .

The analogy is interesting, but extremely flawed. Granted The Eucharist is not the mass and the mass is not the Eucharist. But what you are describing is the Eucharistic sacrifice, and in whatever form it is, it is infinite. such cannot be said by comparing gold and copper, which incidentally does not rust.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[BSHoop96]

Yeah, lets be nice. Practice what you preach instead of smearing millions of people, even if you are the future of the Church.

Oh my gosh, DeaconEd, maybe we need you again! Matt just nicely apologized earlier to Cat and now people just reading one of his past threads are jumping all over him again.

 

[BSHoop96]

Yea, in my opinion von Hildebrand is one of the best when it comes to writing on the liturgy. He also had an excellent book on “Celibacy and the Crisis of Faith” which any Catholic ought to love who believes a celibate priesthood is good (even if it is only a discipline). And he talks about the liturgy in that book as well.

Here’s a link to the book where a customer has written a good overview of von Hildebrand’s points on celibacy:

amazon.com/gp/product/0819904287/ref=cm_rdp_product

God bless.

Thanks, I’ll check that out. I am an NO person but I definitely believe in the celibacy of the priesthood. I might add that my parish is very conservative and “by the book”.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The analogy is interesting, but extremely flawed. Granted The Eucharist is not the mass and the mass is not the Eucharist. But what you are describing is the Eucharistic sacrifice, and in whatever form it is, it is infinite. such cannot be said by comparing gold and copper, which incidentally does not rust.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Hi Deacon Ed B,

Thanks for responding to my post. I didn’t know copper didn’t rust, I’ll make sure to leave that out next time.

I am certainly open to making this analogy better. I am not comparing the Eucharist with the Mass per se. I agree that the Mass is infinitely valuable regardless of form. I am comparing the Mass (“Eucharist” was the term I used) with the liturgy.

The Mass is infinitely valuable, yes, and is the diamond. The liturgy itself (or the form) is the band which makes the diamond possible, but is not the diamond itself. The band can come in different forms, just as there are different forms of the liturgy. The form itself is not necessarily infinitely valuable, or flawless, but ideally it is supposed to help express the infinite value and provide the proper “setting” for the diamond so the diamond can be seen as much as possible in all its glory.

Thus it is improper to critique that which is flawless and infinitely valuable (the diamond). It is not improper to critique the band (the form), particularly if for good reason it is not deemed to be providing as good of a setting for the diamond as it could.

God bless.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Hi Deacon Ed B,

Thanks for responding to my post. I didn’t know copper didn’t rust, I’ll make sure to leave that out next time.

I am certainly open to making this analogy better. I am not comparing the Eucharist with the Mass per se. I agree that the Mass is infinitely valuable regardless of form. I am comparing the Mass (“Eucharist” was the term I used) with the liturgy.

The Mass is infinitely valuable, yes, and is the diamond. The liturgy itself (or the form) is the band which makes the diamond possible, but is not the diamond itself. The band can come in different forms, just as there are different forms of the liturgy. The form itself is not necessarily infinitely valuable, or flawless, but ideally it is supposed to help express the infinite value and provide the proper “setting” for the diamond so the diamond can be seen as much as possible in all its glory.

Thus it is improper to critique that which is flawless and infinitely valuable (the diamond). It is not improper to critique the band (the form), particularly if for good reason it is not deemed to be providing as good of a setting for the diamond as it could.

God bless.

Brennan, any way you cut it, the band, whether you call it liturgy, or form, it still is the integral part of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which in and of itself is infinite. The mass is one integral entity, the Eucharistic sacrifice, cannot be divided, as it is one in essence, i.e., the reenactment of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. One act infinite in merit. Indivisible. i.e., NO RUST ( love that last part)
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[BSHoop96]

First, this is the most hilarious tread I have found on this forum! I am LMAO as I read the responses to cothrige question; “what is going on in this forum”? The posters joined the original complaint, and started showing how “the other guy” was attacking the Church, the Pope, the Bishops…

But then, as I was reading further, slowly another fact revealed itself…these people who do the bashing and the arguing, are almost all CONVERTS! By now the humorous side of the event started showing itself…from now on it was a matter of time to find that most, if not all the converts are former protestants, so an answer to the original question started to emerge…question: what do Protestants do best???..They argue!! LMAO!

As the discussion deepened, some of the pre-conversion bickering started to emerge among some of the converts…just like before, they attacked each other mercilessly, and as more and more “converts” joined in, the tread was anything but 'traditional"…if we look at the substance. But it was traditional in everything else…the arguing reminded me of those good old days, when in the name of religion we called each others all kind of names, just to show that the “truth” was on our side!! LOL!

I wonder if there are original Catholics who participated in these arguments?..Judging by the answers, not many. But who needs those who can’t contribute…right? I would like to propose a change in the title of this tread**…“The bickering converts” **would be more appropriate…Hehe…

And finally, let me make a confession…I am a convert too, so please, don’t be too harsh on me…LOL!

we’re all nuts aren’t we?

 

[catharina]

** I was baptized a Catholic on January 10th 1946 during a dreadful blizzard in Chicago. Nonetheless, having worked with little children for decades, I’ll happily admit that I’ve appreciated the song “Jesus loves me” since I first heard it about fifty years ago.

No - I’m not suggesting it be incorporated at any Mass; I’m only saying I really like the song.

If you don’t like the song, please forgive me! OK?**

 

[the_phoenix]

And finally, let me make a confession…I am a convert too, so please, don’t be too harsh on me…LOL!

Wow … I’m a cradle Catholic and I have to admit, you had me a bit worried there until I saw your punch line. :bigyikes:

~~ the phoenix

P.S. The real reason why I’m using the :bigyikes: emoticon is because it’s a fun emoticon to use and I rarely get to indulge. If there was a happy sigh-of-relief-and-we’re-all-friends-here emoticon, that would be the one that really fits.

I think I shall now return to lurk mode …

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennan, any way you cut it, the band, whether you call it liturgy, or form, it still is the integral part of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which in and of itself is infinite. The mass is one integral entity, the Eucharistic sacrifice, cannot be divided, as it is one in essence, i.e., the reenactment of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. One act infinite in merit. Indivisible. i.e., NO RUST ( love that last part)
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I agree that the form is integral and without it you can’t have a Mass. However, the form the Mass takes is not the infinitely valuable part. If if was, the form would be beyond any criticism and people like Dietrich von Hildebrand, Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Ratzinger, and Fr. Fessio of Ignatius Press to name a few would be way out of line for critiquing the Novus Ordo liturgy.

It is obvious that when, for instance, von Hildebrand critiques the Novus Ordo in the article in my signature line he is making a distinction between the form of the liturgy and the Mass itself. He obviously would never criticize the infinitely valuable Mass itself.

Thus this distinction between the form of the Mass and the Mass itself is critical, otherwise any critique of the form becomes an attack on the Mass itself, and such is not the case for von Hildebrand or any of the other authors I named.