Why do you regularly attend the tridentine mass?

[TrueLight]

May I ask a personal question?
Are you a person afraid of Changes? Or do you think that evolution in the Church stopped there and nothing can be changed? Or do you think that new experiments should be prfect right at the beginning?

Oh you were you speaking to me? I saw Warrenton’s post first and thought you were speaking to him.

I don’t see what in my post would warrant those questions? LOL.

 

[TrueLight]

.
Or do you think that new experiments should be perfect right at the beginning?

New “experiments”? Interesting verbiage.

 

[JM3]

Religion, by its nature, shouldn’t change: what was true yesterday should be true today.

1 Corinthians 13:11 - When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.

 

[mattkubes]

Afraid of changes? In this day and age? It’s nothing but change, morning, noon and night.

Take but one example from today’s headlines. Germany is going to agree to greater central control of the banks to rescue the Euro. Yesterday, Germany refused the same thing she agrees with today. Tomorrow, who knows what Germany will do.

Yesterday, Greece would not agree to control of her government by European bankers. Today, she’ll do anything they want. Tomorrow, who knows what Greece will do.

Take another example. Yesterday, we were told our population was critically high, that we would run out of food, housing and fuel. Today, we are told that since our population is too low, we must accept the influx of millions of foreigners among us to support our pensions, our medical insurance, our economy. Tomorrow, what will be told? Perhaps that we need to commit collective suicide for the comfort of the immigrants.

It’s not a question of being afraid of changes, its a question of being sick to death of changes.

The Church is my refuge from the pointless “evolution” that surrounds me, from the perpetutal “experimentations” at my expense by people who treat me like less thana pawn, on the sole basis that they have the power to do so.

The rites and rituals of the Church were kept by the holy men and women who lived before me, not only for their benefit, but also for my benefit, and for the benefit of those who are to come after me. That’s Catholic tradition. To take those traditions from me is a kind of theft. Asking if I think an experiment should be perfect from the beginning is like asking if I think a thief should take everything away in one robbery or hit me repeatedly. My preference, since you asked, is not to be robbed at all.

I resent the suggestion that if I prefer the tridentine mass, there is something defective about my personality or my spirituality. Though I am a sinner, I know what I need for salvation, and where the grace to obtain salvation may be found. To my thinking, this is far more realistic than imagining the truths of God can be altered to suit the whims of the moment, or fashion, or the preferences of people outside of the holy Church.

Catholics don’t need to ask if they fear changes. Catholics should be asking are we a people who are afraid of truth?

Yes. This.

 

[jmj1984]

1 Corinthians 13:11 - When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.

So the church was childish in the past? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry

 

[jmj1984]

Afraid of changes? In this day and age? It’s nothing but change, morning, noon and night.

Take but one example from today’s headlines. Germany is going to agree to greater central control of the banks to rescue the Euro. Yesterday, Germany refused the same thing she agrees with today. Tomorrow, who knows what Germany will do.

Yesterday, Greece would not agree to control of her government by European bankers. Today, she’ll do anything they want. Tomorrow, who knows what Greece will do.

Take another example. Yesterday, we were told our population was critically high, that we would run out of food, housing and fuel. Today, we are told that since our population is too low, we must accept the influx of millions of foreigners among us to support our pensions, our medical insurance, our economy. Tomorrow, what will be told? Perhaps that we need to commit collective suicide for the comfort of the immigrants.

It’s not a question of being afraid of changes, its a question of being sick to death of changes.

The Church is my refuge from the pointless “evolution” that surrounds me, from the perpetutal “experimentations” at my expense by people who treat me like less thana pawn, on the sole basis that they have the power to do so.

The rites and rituals of the Church were kept by the holy men and women who lived before me, not only for their benefit, but also for my benefit, and for the benefit of those who are to come after me. That’s Catholic tradition. To take those traditions from me is a kind of theft. Asking if I think an experiment should be perfect from the beginning is like asking if I think a thief should take everything away in one robbery or hit me repeatedly. My preference, since you asked, is not to be robbed at all.

I resent the suggestion that if I prefer the tridentine mass, there is something defective about my personality or my spirituality. Though I am a sinner, I know what I need for salvation, and where the grace to obtain salvation may be found. To my thinking, this is far more realistic than imagining the truths of God can be altered to suit the whims of the moment, or fashion, or the preferences of people outside of the holy Church.

Catholics don’t need to ask if they fear changes. Catholics should be asking are we a people who are afraid of truth?

Great post

 

[mattkubes]

1 Corinthians 13:11 - When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.

How on earth does this support you? Either you’re saying the glorious TLM was childish, in which case I would urge you to read Quo Primum and embrace reason, or you’ve grossly misunderstood our current situation. The Church - or probably more accurately, some of our shepherds within the Church - embraced childishness and banality at what should have been the height of Her organic liturgical development.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I didn’t vote as I can only make it to the EF a few times a year at best.

If I could get there for every Mass I would always assist at the EF. ** I love the reverence. I love to kneel to receive our Lord. I love to hear Gregorian Chant** after receiving.

The whole experience helps me to feel closer to heaven. There are a lot of little things too. Even at my local parish which celebrates the OF exclusively the experience has changed for me ever since the Tabernacle was returned to its proper position – front and centre right below the crucifix. As we celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass it is feeling more like we are in the court of heaven than it did before.
In other words, even the architecture can make a difference.

But especially the music. In most circumstances I feel that the music should be holy and majestic. I appreciate the effort made by our choir, but the choice of music is generally uninspiring.

I DO regularly attend the EF myself, but I just wanted to comment on the bold above: the OF should have all these things, it’s just that a large majority (or so it seems) chooses the lesser route, (i.e., not using chant, etc.)

 

[JM3]

the glorious TLM

ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/MASS.TXT

In the sixteenth century the Council of Trent, greatly concerned to note
the liturgical differences, and even errors, which had slipped into certain
Missals and Breviaries, entrusted to the Popes the care of a general
revision of these books. The names of St. Pius V Gregory XIII, Clement
VIII, Paul V, and Urban VIII are attached to this reform. The Bull “Quod a
nobis” (1568) imposed the corrected Breviary on all churches which could
not claim a use of at least two hundred years; the Bull “Quo primum” (1570)
imposed the Missal on the whole Church under the same conditions. The other
liturgical books, Ritual, Pontifical, Ceremonial, Martyrology, were also
corrected during the following years. France gladly accepted these
directions, and took part in the reawakening of liturgical studies. It was
only later, in the last third of the seventeenth century that the movement,
justly called “the liturgical deviation,” began to take shape.

Certain Bishops, inspired by their Jansenist or Gallican sentiments,
desired to reform the Missal, Breviary, and other liturgical books contrary
to the law obtaining at that time. The Ritual of Alet, the Breviary of
Vienne the Missal and Breviary of Paris and of other dioceses were remade,
and, unfortunately, in more than one case, Jansenist or Gallican errors
slipped into these books. Another disadvantage was the introduction of
notable differences in the liturgy in different dioceses, and at the time
of the French Revolution the confusion was at its worst. It was Dom
Gueranger, Abbot of Solesmes, who in 1830 began the war against these
liturgies, and who showed that, without speaking of the errors they
contained, they were all illegitimate from birth. This struggle was crowned
with success, and little by little the different dioceses came back to the
Roman liturgy The Bull “Inter multiplices,” published in 1853 by Pius IX,
may be considered as the last act in this history.

Now St. Paul’s text proves that the Christians obeyed Christ’s precept;
they renewed their celebration of that last banquet in memory of Him, “hoc
facite in Meam commemorationem.” But they introduced a new element into it.
According to St. Paul the Eucharist was accomplished at the close of
another repast, which was the “agape.” This circumstance has complicated
the history of the origin of the Eucharist, but I think the difficulty may
be shortly summed up.

The agape was a repast celebrated by the Christians, and, as the word
indicates, it was a feast of love, or charity. The details given by St.
Paul make it easy to understand the possible abuses which might arise from
it. The Jews, and even the pagans, had feasts of the same kind. Is the
“agape” derived from either of these, or is it specifically Christian? My
own opinion is that this question is of little importance. But what we must
note is that, according to St. Paul and other witnesses, it was at that
time united to the Eucharist. Very soon–probably at the beginning of the
second century–the two were separated on account of abuses, and towards
the fourth century the “agape” was declining. It must not be confounded
with those repasts sometimes celebrated by the Christians on the tombs of
the martyrs, or in cemeteries, though these also had a liturgical
character.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM

1. It is an error, consequently, and a mistake to think of the sacred liturgy as merely the outward or visible part of divine worship or as an ornamental ceremonial. No less erroneous is the notion that it consists solely in a list of laws and prescriptions according to which the ecclesiastical hierarchy orders the sacred rites to be performed.

 

[MillTownCath]

What makes people ‘feel’ more holy and closer to God is quite frankly seems to be a personal preference. I’ve gone to novus ordo masses all my life, and last week I went to an EF Mass. I very much appreciated the beautiful music and sense of tradition, but I did not feel the love of Christ anymore than I do at NO masses.

I truly feel the Lord’s presence when I attend the new mass. I feel his love, I feel his call for me to love his laws. I feel the presence of all the Catholics who have gone before me.

To those who dislike the Novus Ordo, do you believe I am not truly feeling Christ at Mass?
Is it annoying when people wear informal dress to Mass? Yes. Do I let it anger me and distract me to the point where I no long feel Christ during mass? Of course not.

 

[TrueLight]

To those who dislike the Novus Ordo, do you believe I am not truly feeling Christ at Mass?
.

You went to an EF mass and you don’t like it any better than the OF. In fact, you liked it less.

Okay. That’s fine. We get that.

There is no reason to wonder or care about what anyone thinks about your preference.

 

[JM3]

but I did not feel the love of Christ anymore than I do at NO masses.

You went to an EF mass and you don’t like it any better than the OF. In fact, you liked it less.

That’s clearly not what was said.

 

[Warrenton]

To those who dislike the Novus Ordo, do you believe I am not truly feeling Christ at Mass?

No. I hope none of these posts have made you think anyone doubts the sincerity of your devotion to mass.

 

[Warrenton]

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.

Under the implication of this post, what are we to make of “children’s masses” and “youth” masses?

 

[TrueLight]

That’s clearly not what was said.

He posted about his experience on other threads. I’m just saying it’s fine. There is no reason to think there is anything wrong with preferring the OF, nor does he need to get approval from “trads”. That’s what I’m sensing he is feeling.

 

[JM3]

To those who dislike the Novus Ordo, do you believe I am not truly feeling Christ at Mass?

There is no reason to wonder or care about what anyone thinks about your preference.

He posted about his experience on other threads. I’m just saying it’s fine. There is no reason to think there is anything wrong with preferring the OF, nor does he need to get approval from “trads”. That’s what I’m sensing he is feeling.

He asked a valid question and, instead of answering that question, you dismiss him. Is this charity?

 

[TrueLight]

He asked a valid question and, instead of answering that question, you dismiss him. Is this charity?

Is it charitable to instigate?

If I have offended him then I will apologize.

But I don’t think it’s a good idea to post things that will incite others to feel that they SHOULD be offended even if they weren’t.

Just a thought.

 

[mattkubes]

What makes people ‘feel’ more holy and closer to God is quite frankly seems to be a personal preference. I’ve gone to novus ordo masses all my life, and last week I went to an EF Mass. I very much appreciated the beautiful music and sense of tradition, but I did not feel the love of Christ anymore than I do at NO masses.

I truly feel the Lord’s presence when I attend the new mass. I feel his love, I feel his call for me to love his laws. I feel the presence of all the Catholics who have gone before me.

To those who dislike the Novus Ordo, do you believe I am not truly feeling Christ at Mass?
Is it annoying when people wear informal dress to Mass? Yes. Do I let it anger me and distract me to the point where I no long feel Christ during mass? Of course not.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. We don’t base our faith on feelings which are subjective and fleeting. There is an objective reality to the Mass, and that has very little to do with our having received spiritual consolations or experiencing warm-fuzzies.

(As a side note, St. John of the Cross goes into this in depth in his Dark Night of the Soul. It’s an excellent read for the time when some of those consolatory feelings you have now (might) end up being taken away - all as part of God’s plan to deepen you in your Faith!)

No, my argument would be that the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary by one of our holy priests acting in persona Christi calls for so much more solemnity and reverence than it receives at all-too-often pedestrian NO Masses.

 

[JM3]

experiencing warm-fuzzies.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM

1. But the chief element of divine worship must be interior. For we must always live in Christ and give ourselves to Him completely, so that in Him, with Him and through Him the heavenly Father may be duly glorified. The sacred liturgy requires, however, that both of these elements be intimately linked with each another. This recommendation the liturgy itself is careful to repeat, as often as it prescribes an exterior act of worship. Thus we are urged, when there is question of fasting, for example, “to give interior effect to our outward observance.”[28] Otherwise religion clearly amounts to mere formalism, without meaning and without content. You recall, Venerable Brethren, how the divine Master expels from the sacred temple, as unworthily to worship there, people who pretend to honor God with nothing but neat and wellturned phrases, like actors in a theater, and think themselves perfectly capable of working out their eternal salvation without plucking their inveterate vices from their hearts.[29] It is, therefore, the keen desire of the Church that all of the faithful kneel at the feet of the Redeemer to tell Him how much they venerate and love Him. She wants them present in crowds – like the children whose joyous cries accompanied His entry into Jerusalem – to sing their hymns and chant their song of praise and thanksgiving to Him who is King of Kings and Source of every blessing. She would have them move their lips in prayer, sometimes in petition, sometimes in joy and gratitude, and in this way experience His merciful aid and power like the apostles at the lakeside of Tiberias, or abandon themselves totally, like Peter on Mount Tabor, to mystic union with the eternal God in contemplation.

 

[JM3]

Is it charitable to instigate?

If I have offended him then I will apologize.

But I don’t think it’s a good idea to post things that will incite others to feel that they SHOULD be offended even if they weren’t.

Just a thought.

Has it occured to you that I might be offended by the way you treat others?

(though I know my feelings are irrelevant, as many have said here)