Why are there cafeteria Catholics when it comes to the OF?

[ElToro]

What’s with the cafeteria Catholics when it comes to the OF Mass? The Church provides us with legitimate choices and obviously there is no problem with voicing suport for our legitimate preferences. But to make ourselves the arbiters of right and wrong, good and bad by attacking those legitrimate choices which we may personally might not favor makes no sense to me.

Consider those who make the (erroneous) claim that it’s wrong to receive communion except on one’s tongue even where the Church allows communion in the hand. Or those who claim it’s wrong to receive communion while standing even though the Church allows and sometimes even gives preference to this posture. Everyone has their preferences but to attack something the Church allows and in some cases even promotes? That’s bad form and I wonder about the source.

How about those that suggest that using the piano during the Mass is wrong? Yes, the Church gives preference to the pipe organ but that certainly does not mean that using a piano is wrong. Some even suggest the EF Mass is inherently superior to the OF Mass which of course is not true.

Where have these people been taught that they (and not the Church) are the arbiters of right and wrong, good and bad? This issue amazes me more and more.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I suggest that you try not to worry about it.

 

[Insight]

What’s with the cafeteria Catholics when it comes to the OF Mass? The Church provides us with legitimate choices and obviously there is no problem with voicing suport for our legitimate preferences. But to make ourselves the arbiters of right and wrong, good and bad by attacking those legitrimate choices which we may personally might not favor makes no sense to me.

Consider those who make the (erroneous) claim that it’s wrong to receive communion except on one’s tongue even where the Church allows communion in the hand. Or those who claim it’s wrong to receive communion while standing even though the Church allows and sometimes even gives preference to this posture. Everyone has their preferences but to attack something the Church allows and in some cases even promotes? That’s bad form and I wonder about the source.

How about those that suggest that using the piano during the Mass is wrong? Yes, the Church gives preference to the pipe organ but that certainly does not mean that using a piano is wrong. Some even suggest the EF Mass is inherently superior to the OF Mass which of course is not true.

Where have these people been taught that they (and not the Church) are the arbiters of right and wrong, good and bad? This issue amazes me more and more.

Sounds like you been hanging out with some real old-timers.

God Bless

 

[puzzleannie]

so what
if they want to rant, take them out, buy them a beer and let them ramble on

what possible effect should any of this have on your own participation in the Mass? none, so let it go

 

[valentino]

i believe people who attend EF feel like their getting the real deal.Those people put a little more efficience on the Mass so they are more likely to be a regular attendent.They may take Mass a litttle more seriously and dress more traditional.When the OF came out it loosened the standards.People didn/t feel that the had to be quite as reverend.I think the Church did lose something when it went OF.I think it was to boost attendance.I don’t know that it did.

 

[TrueLight]

i believe people who attend EF feel like their getting the real deal.Those people put a little more efficience on the Mass so they are more likely to be a regular attendent.They may take Mass a litttle more seriously and dress more traditional.When the OF came out it loosened the standards.People didn/t feel that the had to be quite as reverend.I think the Church did lose something when it went OF.I think it was to boost attendance.I don’t know that it did.

 

[Love_Divine]

i believe people who attend EF feel like their getting the real deal.Those people put a little more efficience on the Mass so they are more likely to be a regular attendent.They may take Mass a litttle more seriously and dress more traditional.When the OF came out it loosened the standards.People didn/t feel that the had to be quite as reverend.I think the Church did lose something when it went OF.I think it was to boost attendance.I don’t know that it did.

Mass is still a serious affair, but far too many people have lost all sense of reverence, belief in transubstantiation, and Mass has turned into Happy Hour. I feel physical pain when I attend my parish and am subjected to the priest dragging in the secular world of sports, or getting drunk, etc. No where in the Roman Missal does the rubrics instruct the priest to have everyone wearing their Boston Bruins jerseys to stand up so we can acknowledge their win. It’s absurd that we would acknowledge the NHL, but not acknowledge that Jesus is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament and pay him the reverence, worship and thanksgiving he deserves.

If you knew what Mass is and understood it, you’d understand why these things are so important to us.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I think there are extremes. True, there are some pretty significant abuses in certain parishes that use the OF, as stated above, but that is no reason to condemn the OF as a whole. It is merely a reason to reform it. The things cited by the OP are things that many EF advocates may consider abuse, but aren’t. I personally prefer the OF, and I think it is important when it comes to bringing the gospel to people and getting them more involved in the mass. At the same time, I think that people who prefer the EF should probably have it available to them.

 

[ElToro]

so what
if they want to rant, take them out, buy them a beer and let them ramble on

what possible effect should any of this have on your own participation in the Mass? none, so let it go

I don’t want to rant. But I am curious. Why would those who claim to know the liturgy so well act like cafeteria Catholics? You’d think they would be the LAST people to act in this manner.

 

[ElToro]

i believe people who attend EF feel like their getting the real deal.Those people put a little more efficience on the Mass so they are more likely to be a regular attendent.They may take Mass a litttle more seriously and dress more traditional.When the OF came out it loosened the standards.People didn/t feel that the had to be quite as reverend.I think the Church did lose something when it went OF.I think it was to boost attendance.I don’t know that it did.

Unproven. But still that’s different than attacking something the Church approves of.

 

[ElToro]

Mass is still a serious affair, but far too many people have lost all sense of reverence, belief in transubstantiation, and Mass has turned into Happy Hour. I feel physical pain when I attend my parish and am subjected to the priest dragging in the secular world of sports, or getting drunk, etc. No where in the Roman Missal does the rubrics instruct the priest to have everyone wearing their Boston Bruins jerseys to stand up so we can acknowledge their win. It’s absurd that we would acknowledge the NHL, but not acknowledge that Jesus is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament and pay him the reverence, worship and thanksgiving he deserves.

If you knew what Mass is and understood it, you’d understand why these things are so important to us.

You’re not answering my question though. Why do people claim to be uber-Catholics WHILE attacking that which the Church approves of? That’s a puzzle to me.

 

[ElToro]

I think there are extremes. True, there are some pretty significant abuses in certain parishes that use the OF, as stated above, but that is no reason to condemn the OF as a whole. It is merely a reason to reform it. The things cited by the OP are things that many EF advocates may consider abuse, but aren’t. I personally prefer the OF, and I think it is important when it comes to bringing the gospel to people and getting them more involved in the mass. At the same time, I think that people who prefer the EF should probably have it available to them.

What makes you (or anyone else) the arbiter of what needs reform and not the Church herself? Why would the people you mention put themselves in the place of being the judges of what is an abuse and what is not?

 

[promethius95945]

i believe people who attend EF feel like their getting the real deal.Those people put a little more efficience on the Mass so they are more likely to be a regular attendent.They may take Mass a litttle more seriously and dress more traditional.When the OF came out it loosened the standards.People didn/t feel that the had to be quite as reverend.I think the Church did lose something when it went OF.I think it was to boost attendance.I don’t know that it did.

You have an attribution error in your post. The idea that the tridentine mass magically assured that people would be reverent is a revisionist history of the condition of the church: a mark of old-timers who remember the “good old days” better than they ever were in reality.

The problem is that the average catholic who might show less reverence has less interest vested in sticking with the traditional mass, so all such catholics made the transition to the OF mass, while many of the more orthodox catholics cleaved to the old mass. Whether or not someone is more likely to behave in an orthodox/reverent manner is less a question of which mass the church puts forth and more a question of the person in particular (and what mass they attend is affected by their disposition in this regard, not the other way around).

 

[promethius95945]

I don’t want to rant. But I am curious. Why would those who claim to know the liturgy so well act like cafeteria Catholics? You’d think they would be the LAST people to act in this manner.

I’m always shocked by those who said they left the church because OTHERS around them weren’t “towing the catholic line”…

um… WHAT??? I don’t care if someone recieves communion while standing on their head… if YOU left the church as a result, then YOU have the bigger faith issue with being catholic.

And that’s the direct point I make to any SSPXers that I find out there… they abandoned the church. They’re the perfect element to help make sure that abuses are widely promulgated, but instead of being there to help the church through the transition, they left, ensuring that those who were less inclined to follow the rubrics of the OF were the ones left with a larger voice. That’s WRONG. It hurt the body of the faithful to lose some of it’s most orthodox voices. They abandoned the church, which renders them automatically the “less catholic”

 

[Paxvobis]

What’s with the cafeteria Catholics when it comes to the OF Mass? The Church provides us with legitimate choices and obviously there is no problem with voicing suport for our legitimate preferences. But to make ourselves the arbiters of right and wrong, good and bad by attacking those legitrimate choices which we may personally might not favor makes no sense to me.

Consider those who make the (erroneous) claim that it’s wrong to receive communion except on one’s tongue even where the Church allows communion in the hand. Or those who claim it’s wrong to receive communion while standing even though the Church allows and sometimes even gives preference to this posture. Everyone has their preferences but to attack something the Church allows and in some cases even promotes? That’s bad form and I wonder about the source.

How about those that suggest that using the piano during the Mass is wrong? Yes, the Church gives preference to the pipe organ but that certainly does not mean that using a piano is wrong. Some even suggest the EF Mass is inherently superior to the OF Mass which of course is not true.

Where have these people been taught that they (and not the Church) are the arbiters of right and wrong, good and bad? This issue amazes me more and more.

I think that people like to confuse their preferences with the laws of the Church. I prefer the EF, Gregorian Chant, and Communion on the tongue, but I understand and accept the fact that the church allows the OF and communion in the hand.

I also think people are always too nostalgic about what they think are the “good ol’ days.” From what I hear, there were abuses at mass then too. For example, so called 15 or 20 minute ‘speed masses.’

My advise is to worship the way you want to worship (so long as it is within the laws of the Church, of course ) and to not care about what confused people, or SSPX’ers have to say.

 

[ElToro]

I think that people like to confuse their preferences with the laws of the Church. I prefer the EF, Gregorian Chant, and Communion on the tongue, but I understand and accept the fact that the church allows the OF and communion in the hand.

I also think people are always too nostalgic about what they think are the “good ol’ days.” From what I hear, there were abuses at mass then too. For example, so called 15 or 20 minute ‘speed masses.’

My advise is to worship the way you want to worship (so long as it is within the laws of the Church, of course ) and to not care about what confused people, or SSPX’ers have to say.

Yes, exactly! No problem with having legitimate preferences. But it still makes me wonder why people who claim to know the Church so well end-up placing themselves as the arbiters rather than rightfully allowing the Church to have that authority.

 

[ElToro]

I’m always shocked by those who said they left the church because OTHERS around them weren’t “towing the catholic line”…

um… WHAT??? I don’t care if someone recieves communion while standing on their head… if YOU left the church as a result, then YOU have the bigger faith issue with being catholic.

And that’s the direct point I make to any SSPXers that I find out there… they abandoned the church. They’re the perfect element to help make sure that abuses are widely promulgated, but instead of being there to help the church through the transition, they left, ensuring that those who were less inclined to follow the rubrics of the OF were the ones left with a larger voice. That’s WRONG. It hurt the body of the faithful to lose some of it’s most orthodox voices. They abandoned the church, which renders them automatically the “less catholic”

Spot-on! I was having this discussion with a group from my parish. One guy said he and his family started attending a parish where the priest celebrated a “secret” Tridentine Mass at some odd hour for those who “just couldn’t take the nonsense.” This was right after the implementation of the Pauline Mass so this priest did this without any authority. Why would the supposed uber-upright support something like this?

The priest was finally supressed and later joined what became the SSPX.

 

[ElToro]

You have an attribution error in your post. The idea that the tridentine mass magically assured that people would be reverent is a revisionist history of the condition of the church: a mark of old-timers who remember the “good old days” better than they ever were in reality.

The problem is that the average catholic who might show less reverence has less interest vested in sticking with the traditional mass, so all such catholics made the transition to the OF mass, while many of the more orthodox catholics cleaved to the old mass. Whether or not someone is more likely to behave in an orthodox/reverent manner is less a question of which mass the church puts forth and more a question of the person in particular (and what mass they attend is affected by their disposition in this regard, not the other way around).

I think one reason why our Masses are so rushed at my parish today is the legacy of the “burn em and churn em” EFMasses of years past. Here locally it was a misplaced source of pride, something to boast about when talking about how short the Masses were in one’s parish.

 

[valentino]

Love Divine: I couldn’t agree more.

 

[ElToro]

Mass is still a serious affair, but far too many people have lost all sense of reverence, belief in transubstantiation, and Mass has turned into Happy Hour. I feel physical pain when I attend my parish and am subjected to the priest dragging in the secular world of sports, or getting drunk, etc. No where in the Roman Missal does the rubrics instruct the priest to have everyone wearing their Boston Bruins jerseys to stand up so we can acknowledge their win. It’s absurd that we would acknowledge the NHL, but not acknowledge that Jesus is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament and pay him the reverence, worship and thanksgiving he deserves.

If you knew what Mass is and understood it, you’d understand why these things are so important to us.

I think this was also true with the 18 minute burn’um and churn’um Masses in a language that most could not understand or even clearly observe for the most part.

My question was why do people make themselves arbiters of what is right/wrong rather than allowing the Church to have that authority PARTICULARLY when they claim to be well catechized Catholics who should know better?