What does that even mean? That the OF is the “unreal deal?” And if that is what they mean again, how in the world could they place themselves in the position as the arbiters of what is “real” and not real?
My dear friend in Christ,
Exactly. Reverence, as in humility, is an interior disposition, not an outward show, even if how we want to display this interiour reverence and this interior humility might be personal preferences of “likes and thinks.”This may be a bit of a surprise BUT Mass is about God, Sacrifice, Worship and piety. What We like; what we think is not even revelant.
Yes, it does seem pretty lame to see people occasionally claim that a music director or a guitar or dirty hands of others or a clown costume from 1973 got them to quit the Church, and then stacking their self-righteous indignation up against what the martyrs went through so as to not deny Christ.
Why can’t we have more people like you around? I’m sort of an opposite person; I go to the OF and receive CITH. I recognize that other people prefer the EF or COTT and the Church totally makes that available so I say “do it if that’s what you feel like”; all I’ve asked in return is for those people to reciprocate. It shouldn’t be that hard since those reciprocal options are all licit, so it’s nice to see someone do that.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.
But you never see people just criticize. There are always calls to end CITH or reinstate Latin or the Eucharist kneeling around here (and I could go on). That is crossing the line from criticism to calling it inferior.
So what makes you the arbiter of blah blah? Have you not heard of the reform? Follow closely what the Pope has been doing the past 5 years. All these practices and documents he has released or prefers are for a reason. He realizes that too many people don’t see what mass truly is. Reverence has been lost, and so has Catholic identity especially due to the bureaucracy in the Church, which the Pope has spoken harshly about. Reform of the reform!
Why would you type something like the above? What made you do it?My dear friend in Christ,
***PERHAPS it MIGHT make a difference if you knew the history and origins of the N.O . mass changes? Then again; perhaps not:***o
The difference between “allows” and DESIRES is as far apart as the East is from the West. I AM of the opinion that because “one can” HAS NEVER MEANT “one should.”
It is NOTEABLE that when one receives OUR GOD in Holy Communion from OUR Pope:
One MUST Kneel
One MUST Receive on the tongue
These REMAIN the World-wide norms for the CC BECAUSE it is more respectful and more pious and places the emphasis back on God and away from us.
This may be a bit of a surprise BUT Mass is about God, Sacrifice, Worship and piety. What We like; what we think is not even revelant.
God Bless you,
Pat
That’s true. But what makes someone make a comment like:
What?
Be very careful.I think the term “cafeteria Catholic” is very fitting when applied to those Catholics who makes claim that certain elements the Church allows/encourages are somehow bad or “illicit” or “abusive” or even inferior to their personal choices.
That’s not true. There are many canonized saints who criticized allowed/encouraged “disciplines” and consequently started the wheels of reform turning in the Church. Some were even instructed by apparitions of Our Lord to begin the reform.
Then frankly I would say it’s you who are being a bit unfair, reading a negative judgment of people’s hearts or faiths into traditionalists’ criticisms of certain practices . No judgment of individuals is implied by traditionalists’ arguing for what they think are superior practices, except perhaps that the individuals have not reasoned through the issue sufficiently or do not have all the information they need to arrive at the truth. Most liturgical traditionalists I know are not implying anything about others’ holiness or faith when they argue about the liturgy.
I would say that it is simply incorrect to call a practice allowed by the Church “illicit” or “abusive.” But it is not cafeteria Catholicism to take the position that a certain discipline is really inferior to an alternative. The very principle of Resourcement from Vatican II implies that a current discipline in the Church could be inferior to an older practice, and so, that a return to that different older practice is called for. Laypeople are free to criticize disciplines; indeed, if they are genuinely convinced that the alternative is better, it might be their duty to do so. Catholics get the motivation to call a discipline inferior or a bad idea simply because it seems to them in their reason that it really is so.
Apples and oranges, because likewise the difference between voicing a preference for one over the other as more reverent and declaring valid actions as objectively wrong or disordered is just as far as the east is from the west… and that’s the point that’s being made: we can have preference (Lord knows I certainly do!), but we cannot declare invalid and illicit what the church has allowed as valid and licit.
***THANK YOU for the kind responce.
***Friend you and likeminded COULD NOT possibly be more wrong.What?
If the Church has “released” a new directive or “norm” and one is adament about following it, that is hardly being an arbiter of what is reguired. That’s not my question
Further it would be resoundingly WRONG/FALSE to suggest that receiving communion in the Latin Rite while kneeling and/or on the tongue is “better” than other approved postures and methods because that is the personal choice of Pope Benedict XVI in how he chooses to distribute communion.
I guess I could ask the question why some falsly conclude that based on the Pope’ personal perogative? Is it because it matches their perconceived notions of what is “better” or “best?” I suppose that brings us back to the question of where they came up with such an idea?
Friend did you know that “the reform” did not require:
I don’t believe “extraordinary” means “used less than 10% or 5% of the time.” It is not a matter of what percentage of time they are used. Rather, extraordinary means “not the standard way of doing things, used only when the ordinary way of doing things is impossible or insufficient.” If unfortunate and extraordinary circumstances (like a shortage of priests, as we have in the US) are in place every week, then extraordinary procedures may be present every week. That does not mean that the extraordinary things are being treated as ordinary, it merely means that the extraordinary things are needed every week.
There is nothing wrong with preferences as I have stated more than once in this thread. But that’s a world away from attacking something the Church has approved. If I say I prefer COT over CIH for XYZ reasons there is no problem with that. If I attack CIH there is a big problem with that. The problem gets bigger when people start making silly claims like CIH is not a valid way to receive communion anywhere or that COT is somehow better because the current Pope only delivers communion in that manner.