M
MarkThompson
Guest
I’m not sure you understand what “suppression” is in Church terms. It’s not a general synonym for “beaten down and trampled on.”
- Status
O
Orleans_Attny
Guest
Well, I’m glad that you agree with most of my posts. But perhaps I should clarify what I was saying: My statement wasn’t one of personal belief, but rather of critical analysis. The OP’s premise was that the problem is the existence of 2 forms of the mass and the resulting tension within the laity.
The OP then concluded that the solution would be to establish a single form of the mass.
The OP then supposed that the EF was the correct form to establish.
I merely pointed out the logical disconnect in the last part of the OP’s thinking. For a number of reasons, his or her basic argument supports the universal inculcation of the OF. Indeed, one might say that his or her arguments provided a better basis for establishing the OF over the EF, which is why I said there was something missing from the analysis.
For example, if you’re younger than 43, the OF has been the liturgical norm for your whole life. If you’re younger than 50, the OF has probably been the liturgical norm since your first communion. So, more people are familiar with the OF and more people attend the OF and the OF is already the predominant form of the mass throughout Christendom.
Thus, if the problem is the 2 forms of the Mass (and that’s the only - or at least primary - problem) then the most efficient solution is to make the OF the sole accepted form.
None of that is a statement of my personal belief. It’s merely an analysis of the stated premise. The mere existence of 2 forms of the mass is not a good reason for abolishing the OF and elevating the EF - indeed, exactly the opposite.
If you want my personal opinion: I’d absolutely attend the EF if it were offered anywhere near me, and if I were attending without my family. If I were attending with my family I’d have to decide if it makes sense for me to burden my children with Latin and a wholly foreign mass format in addition to their current religious studies. The latter consideration is merely a time-management, finite-resources-finite-time analysis.
Pax,
OA
O
Orleans_Attny
Guest
I think At Trent is talking about the need, until recently, for an indult to perform the EF. (Thus the phrase: Indult Mass).
Pax,
OA
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Well, I ain’t no genius, Pro Vobis, but I’ll match knowledge with you any week with a Sunday in it.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Try 200 years before Trent by many Reformers who eventually broke with the Church.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Just the English OF. The Polish OF can stay.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Fair enough. I apologize. I’ve never heard anyone dengigrate the old Mass and I’ve known a few very liberal nuns (for instance). I’ve heard people say that they prefer the new Mass to the old, but they didn’t run it down, beyond saying that.
But look back to the beginning of this thread: It’s basically another “to solve the problems of the Church” (the OP doesn’t identify the crisis, whether it’s the paedophilia crisis or what) “we ditch the OF and have only the EF” (I paraphrased the last bit) thread. Most of the liberals who DON’T like the OF, such as Fr. Richard O’Brien or Bishop Gumbleton perhaps or Sr. Joan Chichester, OSB, don’t post in these fora. Most of the people who post and read here are just plain, orthodox Catholics, a great number of whom actually like the OF, have been nurtured on the OF, and regard it has possessing what the Council called for (a “noble simplicity”) when it is rightly celebrated. We don’t want it to go away. I’ve never read in these fora anyone calling for the abrogation of the EF, yet people feel perfectly fine to disparge and denigrate the OF. The arrogance, the triumphalism, the anger, and the paranoia (you yourself said something to the effect that “the OF crowd can do no wrong, the EF crowd can do no good.” Where, for pity’s sake, did anyone here post THAT?) COULD, just POSSIBLY, mind you, lead someone to think “The EF? If this is what it engenders, then count me out!” As has been observed before, some of the EF’s worst enemies are its own devotees. If this thread is an example of the charity you would extend to those of us who love the OF, well, don’t wonder that we aren’t enthusiastic.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Try reading Church history. You’ll find many reformers stayed and REFORMED the Church. Pope Benedict has said it’s a continuous process.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I guess you weren’t around in the 60’s. The TLM was indeed “beaten down and trampled on.” I’d add vulgarized as well. With the heavy-handedness of the Church going on all these years, it has indeed been the greatest miracle that the 1962 Missal somehow survived. Too bad that fact is only appreciated by a few.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
And my point would be, you people aren’t doing it any favors.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Indeed. I really doubt that the intent of the Novus Ordo was to make it as reverent as the TLM. The innovators and progressives were happy that they could take liberties with the liturgy; reverence would have been more accidental than intended.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Regrettably I missed the swingin’ Sixties. However, this is my point: the word “suppression” actually means something, and it’s not this.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Don’t keep us in suspense, Mark. What, pray tell, does it mean?
Would “de facto abrogation” be a better term?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
No, but “de facto derrogation” might be closer to the Truth.
It’s sad it happened, but it’s being slowly rectified. What about 70 X 7 and all that?
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Uh, right. In Church terms suppression refers to a de jure abrogation, not mere desuetude or de facto elimination.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’m not saying you’re wrong but I have never heard this before.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Sure, that’s why you’ll read, “Such-and-such a practice was not formally suppressed until . . . .” The word also doesn’t carry a negative connotation, like “repression.” When a parish is closed down to be combined with another one it is said to be suppressed; Trent suppressed all but four liturgical sequences.
O
otjm
Guest
I watch these threads for, if nothing else, their entertainment value.
I grew up with the EF when there was nothing else. It is not like I have no clue. But some of the alleged experts have little or no history, and presume that what they see is what existed back then.
My parish, growing up, had 5 Masses on Sunday; one of the was what we called (with due apologies to Malphono, if he is on the sidelines) a High Mass - a sung Mass. The other 4 were what we called a Low Mass; there might be a couple of hymns, no incense, and it was fairly perfunctual.
People now go to an EF sung (High) Mass and presume it is the standard. To an extent, it might be in that it would appear that the intent was that a community would have one Mass, a sung (High) Mass. However, unlike Europe which may have had more priests per populace, and more churches as well as what seems far more cathedrals, the populace in the US did not even at its heydey in the late 1950’s have enough priests and churches that a community would have one Sunday Mass - except in the more rural areas.
Portland is not exactly a thriving mega-city in spite of its attitude, and we sure didn’t. Were we to, with a wave of the papal crosier, suddenly have the EF everywhere and all over, a whole lot of people might be a bit deflated to find that a parish would have but one of the High Masses.
But to other points: from Mass Times, which tracks the Masses throughout the world (not just your local diocese), out of 117,000 parishes world wide, about 1 in 250 has the EF. That works out to something around 99.6% of the Masses world wide are the OF. Hope no one is holding their breath, unless they really look good in blue.
And yes, it is true that there has not been a tremendous amount of support for the EF by the bishops, and yes, there are few priests even now after all the intial enthusiasm and promise of instructions to any and all priests willing to be trained, who can actually say the EF. And where it is offered, there seem to be reasonable numbers of supporters, but few reports of overwhelming support, such that people are scurrying around trying to find more space, or start it up in other parishes. One of the more (if not most) active dioceses seems to be Chicago, with last count of something like 12 parishes offering the EF - which amounts to less than 4% of the parishes. And then there is mine, where you’ d better bring a microscope and tweezers; maybe one or two (the archdiocese stretches some 300+ miles long), and not a whole lot said about them.
J Kirk made a point, and one that many don’t want to hear; the greatest reaction to the changes in the Mass from the EF to the OF was a tremendous acceptance of the vernacular. I would not say people hated Latin. They simply did not understand Latin (and yes, missals had been invented - but many never bought one and the parishs certainly didn’t provide them) and took to the vernacular like ducks to water. I think the single biggest drawback to the spread of the EF (putting bishops, trained priests, and vestments aside) is the fact that people want the vernacular. Most people nowdays under 45 know all too little about their faith - and I am talking of the 30 to 35% that attend regularly. They would have not too much of a clue as to the differences between the two forms if you were to ask them anything beyond a leading question; they would tell you the prayers were perhaps longer but simply would not have enough theological sophistication to tell you the differences in focus between the two. People also want convenience. They want a Mass in their preferred time slot on Sunday (or Saturday night), and won’t mostly travel to even the next parish over unless some form of massive chaos breaks out in their parish.
And by the way, Sunday I was at the Ruthinian Byzantine rite Mass. Seemed odd to be hearing the Gospel reading of the Woman at the well… And there was more incense than a Solemn High Mass.
I grew up with the EF when there was nothing else. It is not like I have no clue. But some of the alleged experts have little or no history, and presume that what they see is what existed back then.
My parish, growing up, had 5 Masses on Sunday; one of the was what we called (with due apologies to Malphono, if he is on the sidelines) a High Mass - a sung Mass. The other 4 were what we called a Low Mass; there might be a couple of hymns, no incense, and it was fairly perfunctual.
People now go to an EF sung (High) Mass and presume it is the standard. To an extent, it might be in that it would appear that the intent was that a community would have one Mass, a sung (High) Mass. However, unlike Europe which may have had more priests per populace, and more churches as well as what seems far more cathedrals, the populace in the US did not even at its heydey in the late 1950’s have enough priests and churches that a community would have one Sunday Mass - except in the more rural areas.
Portland is not exactly a thriving mega-city in spite of its attitude, and we sure didn’t. Were we to, with a wave of the papal crosier, suddenly have the EF everywhere and all over, a whole lot of people might be a bit deflated to find that a parish would have but one of the High Masses.
But to other points: from Mass Times, which tracks the Masses throughout the world (not just your local diocese), out of 117,000 parishes world wide, about 1 in 250 has the EF. That works out to something around 99.6% of the Masses world wide are the OF. Hope no one is holding their breath, unless they really look good in blue.
And yes, it is true that there has not been a tremendous amount of support for the EF by the bishops, and yes, there are few priests even now after all the intial enthusiasm and promise of instructions to any and all priests willing to be trained, who can actually say the EF. And where it is offered, there seem to be reasonable numbers of supporters, but few reports of overwhelming support, such that people are scurrying around trying to find more space, or start it up in other parishes. One of the more (if not most) active dioceses seems to be Chicago, with last count of something like 12 parishes offering the EF - which amounts to less than 4% of the parishes. And then there is mine, where you’ d better bring a microscope and tweezers; maybe one or two (the archdiocese stretches some 300+ miles long), and not a whole lot said about them.
J Kirk made a point, and one that many don’t want to hear; the greatest reaction to the changes in the Mass from the EF to the OF was a tremendous acceptance of the vernacular. I would not say people hated Latin. They simply did not understand Latin (and yes, missals had been invented - but many never bought one and the parishs certainly didn’t provide them) and took to the vernacular like ducks to water. I think the single biggest drawback to the spread of the EF (putting bishops, trained priests, and vestments aside) is the fact that people want the vernacular. Most people nowdays under 45 know all too little about their faith - and I am talking of the 30 to 35% that attend regularly. They would have not too much of a clue as to the differences between the two forms if you were to ask them anything beyond a leading question; they would tell you the prayers were perhaps longer but simply would not have enough theological sophistication to tell you the differences in focus between the two. People also want convenience. They want a Mass in their preferred time slot on Sunday (or Saturday night), and won’t mostly travel to even the next parish over unless some form of massive chaos breaks out in their parish.
And by the way, Sunday I was at the Ruthinian Byzantine rite Mass. Seemed odd to be hearing the Gospel reading of the Woman at the well… And there was more incense than a Solemn High Mass.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
And you are entitled to that opinion. However I attended Catholic Schools grades 1 through 12 and we used the Baltimore Catechism extensively. For the primary grades, in my opinion it would have been much better than what passed for text books for years post Vatican II. Once the basics are learned by rote memory, in my opinion, secondary students and adults would be much better off using the CCC. The Baltimore lacks a lot of explanation and expansion on the basic stuff. I studied Chemistry for some years beyond high school. I found that having memorized the basics in high school, I was much better off in more advanced classes then fellow students who hadn’t been required to form a rote base. Memorizing the CCC would be quite difficult in my opinion.
A
At_Trent
Guest
Can you see the absurdity in that statement ? The falsehood promoted ?
That’s one example of the suppression. I can give you several more from other Bishops if you like. Documented. I can also quote some Bishops lamenting the OF.
We aren’t making this stuff up.
- Status