Why Hostility for the Ordinary Form of the Mass?

[Duesenberg]

You’ve just contradicted yourself. I said ‘the fact remains that the EF is not given treatment.’ You said ‘Not true’ and then explain why the EF isn’t given equal treatment! You say it’s ‘also a matter of resources.’

Naw. It’s given more than equal treatment.

One of the prime factors in determining when to offer Masses, where to offer them and what form to offer is demand. Available resources being the other prime factor.

I suspect in all reality if actual demand were used to determine how to expend priestly resources, the EF would be cancelled entirely – at least locally. The priest who celebrates it now would celebrate another OF Mass at a neighboring parish that does not have a pastor. He already celebrates one there right now on Sundays.

Similarly, if he celebrated an OF Mass when/where he celebrates the EF Mass today and it had 90-100 attendees, it too would be cancelled and the priestly resource redeployed to minister to more people.

 

[Saxum]

Naw. It’s given more than equal treatment.

You’re writing nonsense. I know you can’t mean your comment to be taken seriously. I also question your motivations for starting this thread since you clearly aren’t telling the honest truth. Maybe the real purpose of this thread was to criticise the EF Mass and those who attend it. Who knows. But I know one thing: I’m not continuing this conversation.

 

[Saxum]

I often wonder what the effect would have been if Pope Benedict had even once offered a Solemn Pontifical High Mass in St. Peter’s.

Me too. And I often wonder why Pope Benedict XVI didn’t celebrate it. If I had to guess, I’d say it was because he feared the backlash. I remember the persecution he faced when he issued Summorum Pontificum and remitted the SSPX excommunications. Benedict was constantly criticised both inside and outside the Church. That’s probably why he resigned - and it didn’t help that he was surrounded by wolves. Remember when he asked us to pray that he didn’t flee for fear of the wolves?

 

[Xantippe]

Are we to judge the goodness or rightness of a thing by its popularity and high numbers now?

That’s something to take up with people who claim that if only there were more TLMs available, Catholic churches would be packed.

 

[Duesenberg]

You’re writing nonsense. I know you can’t mean your comment to be taken seriously. I also question your motivations for starting this thread since you clearly aren’t telling the honest truth. Maybe the real purpose of this thread was to criticise the EF Mass and those who attend it. Who knows. But I know one thing: I’m not continuing this conversation.

I meant every bit of the following. Harsh reality, aye?

Naw. It’s given more than equal treatment.

One of the prime factors in determining when to offer Masses, where to offer them and what form to offer is demand. Available resources being the other prime factor.

I suspect in all reality if actual demand were used to determine how to expend priestly resources, the EF would be cancelled entirely – at least locally. The priest who celebrates it now would celebrate another OF Mass at a neighboring parish that does not have a pastor. He already celebrates one there right now on Sundays.

Similarly, if he celebrated an OF Mass when/where he celebrates the EF Mass today and it had 90-100 attendees, it too would be cancelled and the priestly resource redeployed to minister to more people.

 

[Duesenberg]

I’d say it was because he feared the backlash.

What “backlash”?

 

[Debbie_Kono]

That’s something to take up with people who claim that if only there were more TLMs available, Catholic churches would be packed.

I don’t believe it either. We only need look at our Protestant brethren and their mega churches like Saddleback and Joel Osteen’s Lakewood. Those "churches’ are mega because the people want to hear that their sins are not sins. I’m afraid this my be true for many Catholics too. I’m not at all saying people here at CAF are those Catholics. I just know from talking to a lot of Catholics aged 45-75 that I met when I first converted. Many were divorced and either civilly remarried or living with someone, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual “marriage”, believed Sunday obligation was optional and on and on. I don’t know why there are so many Catholics like this…but I seriously doubt they would be interested in attending a EF Mass with Traditional sermons.

 

[Duesenberg]

Those "churches’ are mega because the people want to hear that their sins are not sins.

That’s simply not true. What you suggest is often used as an excuse by those envious of their great size, however.

Most “mega churches” are mega because of several reasons including:

• Excellent leadership.
• Good management.
• Parishioners are treated well/fairly.
• They create wonderful opportunities for fellowship.
• They are great places for kids to be exposed to Christianity.
• They literally become the local communities of the attendees.

There are some “mega” Catholic churches as well who also do well in the above qualities. Sadly, there are far more Catholic parishes that have devolved to little more than sacrament dispensation stations.

 

[Reuben_J]

The norm is OF mass, not EF or that they should be celebrated on equal basis, number for number of times.

IF you want EF mass, then you have to have a priest to preside. It is not so much of hostility towards it but more of the fact that it is not being used in the celebration of the mass in most places. And like been pointed out, there are not many Catholics who actually prefer to go to EF mass, obviously demonstrated by their number that go for the mass. Again it is not about rejection or hostility for EF but rather OF has been much of the norm for the mass. And people have been used to it. There should not be any hostility to both.

 

[ProVobis]

Dr. Schuller and his Crystal Cathedral fit your definitions. They eventually went bankrupt though.

 

[stpurl]

Just exactly how many people would be interested in attending any Mass that:
A. Was usually only celebrated once a month, often on a Sunday afternoon.
B. Had not been seen or heard of by people in nearly 50 years.
C. Is loudly and negatively commented on by most of the friends and family.
D. Is held in places that are far away from the person’s home.

I think it’s amazing that so many people do attend, that many of them are young and on fire (isn’t that something that we should encourage), and have not been turned back by the difficulties.

People talk about the ‘toxic trads’ who are so holier than thou, but there’s a large group of “corrosive contemporaries” who water down the faith and badmouth anything that doesn’t fit their definition of ‘right’.

I have absolutely no hostility for the OF (nor any kind of absurd ‘reverence’ for the EF, come to that). I have what I think is a clear-eyed understanding that hostility is in the bias of the beholder, not in the rites themselves, nor even in the people actually doing the worshipping at either rite. Rather, it’s in those who presume to ‘judge’ the rites and worshippers based on their own arrogant (works both ways, people) views that whatever they feel or believe is ‘right’ and anything that deviates in the slightest is wrong.

The average OF goer is a perfectly fine and nonjudgmental person worshipping as he or she sees fit.
The average EF goer is a perfectly fine and nonjudgmental person worshipping as he or she sees fit.

But the average OF HATER (one who hates the OF)is something different.
And so is the average EF HATER (one who hates the EF).

Since they don’t attend the rite they hate, it’s all about trying to present what they like as ‘right’ and the other as hateful.

If they can’t attack the language or the actions, they’ll attack the priest and people and their ‘ideologies.’

That being said, we have how many people who actually attend each rite?

We have how many OF haters as opposed to EF haters?
(Remember, just going to a rite doesn’t make the person a hater. But a person who does hate will hate the rite he does not attend).

Logically, anybody who is a ‘hater’ is going to hate what he doesn’t do.

Far more people don’t attend the EF( as many of those who attend the OF have been at great pains to ‘prove’), so there are more EF haters, meaning people who hate the EF.

Right?

 

[Duesenberg]

Dr. Schuller and his Crystal Cathedral fit your definitions. They eventually went bankrupt though.

Thankfully the Diocese of Orange scooped-up the property for a very good price. Sadly the cathedral itself is being “wreckovated.” It was an award-winning design by a famous, award-winning architect. It should have been changed as needed to support the celebration of the sacraments, but otherwise conserved. The diocese just couldn’t control itself – it had to spend $$$ and what 4 years now to dramatically change things…

 

[Duesenberg]

A. Was usually only celebrated once a month, often on a Sunday afternoon.

It was celebrated weekly (even daily) in MANY locations.

B. Had not been seen or heard of by people in nearly 50 years.

See above.

C. Is loudly and negatively commented on by most of the friends and family.

I have never heard such comments. Not ever.

D. Is held in places that are far away from the person’s home.

Not always.

BY FAR the biggest thing holding back the growth of the EF Mass are the extremists that surround it and put a face to it.

I have no question that if the local, sparsely-attended Sunday EF was discontinued and then re-opened in 6 months as a true part of a healthy existing parish that it would do FAR better in every way, including attendance.

Those with poorly developed social skills, those that act offensively severe need to go sit in the pews and be kept away from ALL lay ministries like ushers, etc.

Summorum Pontificum was issued a decade ago. Any explosive growth for the EF Mass would have taken off within the first year or two.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m reading some of the comments now. Interesting.

https://www.yelp.com/biz/christ-cathedral-garden-grove-8

 

[Duesenberg]

I’m reading some of the comments now. Interesting.

What’s odd is that the balance of the extensive campus (another church, a tower of offices, meeting/reception rooms, a school, a carillon, what amounts to a large office building and a cemetery) was squared away very quickly – and there was a huge amount of deferred maintenance to deal with.

Their handling of the cathedral itself is embarrassing and terribly costly. I remember sitting in it, no more than a month after the diocese finally closed on the sale. Yes it needed a central altar, a tabernacle, pews (it had stadium seating) and a rebuilding of one the largest pipe organs in Christendom, but not a lot more other than maintenance to the “crystal.”

The pacer should have been the rebuilding of the pipe organ. 12 months, TOPS.

 

[33movement]

Personally, a major problem I find with it is the abuse of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. I also find the use of unordained lectors troublesome. The reasons commonly stated for allowing Extraordinary Ministers is that Mass would normally take longer. Regardless the reasons the others dislike it so much is because their reasoning is pride and wishing to be holier-than-thou. Personally I don’t find the New Mass fruitful for me spiritually, but I see no problem if it works for some and they celebrate it the way the Second Vatican Council actually called for it to be done. (Vatican II never said to throw away Latin or anything like some SSPX claim). Many people against the Novus Ordo just wish to be prideful and seem better than the rest, not just because they don’t find it spiritually fruitful.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You are, actually, exactly correct in what you intuit. It’s interesting to me that some do not understand how the two facets go together and are not in any sense in contradiction

When you say the vetus ordo has been given “more than equal treatment,” it is because Pope Benedict’s motu proprio, at least during his pontificate and for a period thereafter, put his thumb on the scale

Whether it is Benedict or Francis or Pius XII, the Pope is not just another Bishop. He is the Vicar of Christ. He has personal power to appoint Bishops, transfer Bishops, and remove Bishops simply by his fiat…himself being completely untouchable and above any of them or all of them together

So when the Pope receives the objections of Bishops throughout the world, as he did over the motu proprio, and says to them: “I don’t care. Go forward and we will sort it out in five years,” that places a burden on the Bishop and correspondingly on the Presbyterate, pure and simple

If, instead of 30 people asking for Mass in the vetus ordo, it was 30 immigrants from Tonga asking for Mass in their language and with their indigenous customs, we would likely decline…not because we did not want to accommodate but because it over-stressed our resources

In the case of the vetus ordo, there has been a need to weigh other factors rather than look at the requests blindly and weigh them impartially. Happily, that is changing. Rome today wants to hear what the problems are. Instead of “we want you to find a solution,” one can hear “yes, the decision not to provide this is reasonable in these circumstances.”

It is one thing to celebrate Eucharist for a group of 15-20 people when we are talking about a monastery of cloistered nuns. If they’re an enclosed Order, the Presider has to come to them…and I’m always glad to do that. I would choose to provide daily Mass for the Sisters over providing a daily Mass for the laity because the laity can, at least theoretically, get themselves to another Mass. The cloistered Nuns, who have dedicated their lives to their monastic observance, will not have Mass if a Presider cannot come to them

But not every similarly tiny group wanting a special pastoral provision can realistically be accommodated

If it were purely a matter of blindly weighing among various pastoral needs, a great many_vetus ordo_ Masses would cease, as you surmise. The numbers do not justify them. And frankly, this needs to be discussed internally and with freedom by the presbyterates who make possible the provision of all celebrations of the Eucharist and other sacraments

It very well may be that, although this priest would be willing to offer Mass in the vetus ordo for 10 people, if he instead said a novus ordo daily Mass in the hospital chapel, there would be 50-60 or more attendees, including patients and hospital staff

Or this priest’s determination to provide the vetus ordo Mass to this group of 15 people means this other priest of the same deanery has to receive a dispensation to trinate in order to cover the other pastoral commitments, which would not be necessary by simply eliminating the vetus ordo Mass being offered by the first priest

 

[Duesenberg]

Personally, a major problem I find with it is the abuse of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

That’s an abuse. It’s not a part of the actual design of the OF Mass.

I also find the use of unordained lectors troublesome.

That’s very odd. Non-ordained chanters are the rule in the Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgies – Ancient liturgies which are far older than the EF Mass. Further, the office of lection is properly that of the laity. It’s not a matter of the laity substituting for the ordained. Even in Easter/Christmas Papal Masses, seminarians and not deacons or priests do the readings.

Regardless the reasons the others dislike it so much is because their reasoning is pride and wishing to be holier-than-thou.

It sounds as if you are projecting here.

 

[Reuben_J]

Just exactly how many people would be interested in attending any Mass that:
A. Was usually only celebrated once a month, often on a Sunday afternoon.
B. Had not been seen or heard of by people in nearly 50 years.
C. Is loudly and negatively commented on by most of the friends and family.
D. Is held in places that are far away from the person’s home.

I think it’s amazing that so many people do attend, that many of them are young and on fire (isn’t that something that we should encourage), and have not been turned back by the difficulties.

People talk about the ‘toxic trads’ who are so holier than thou, but there’s a large group of “corrosive contemporaries” who water down the faith and badmouth anything that doesn’t fit their definition of ‘right’.

I have absolutely no hostility for the OF (nor any kind of absurd ‘reverence’ for the EF, come to that). I have what I think is a clear-eyed understanding that hostility is in the bias of the beholder, not in the rites themselves, nor even in the people actually doing the worshipping at either rite. Rather, it’s in those who presume to ‘judge’ the rites and worshippers based on their own arrogant (works both ways, people) views that whatever they feel or believe is ‘right’ and anything that deviates in the slightest is wrong.

The average OF goer is a perfectly fine and nonjudgmental person worshipping as he or she sees fit.
The average EF goer is a perfectly fine and nonjudgmental person worshipping as he or she sees fit.

But the average OF HATER (one who hates the OF)is something different.
And so is the average EF HATER (one who hates the EF).

Since they don’t attend the rite they hate, it’s all about trying to present what they like as ‘right’ and the other as hateful.

If they can’t attack the language or the actions, they’ll attack the priest and people and their ‘ideologies.’

That being said, we have how many people who actually attend each rite?

We have how many OF haters as opposed to EF haters?
(Remember, just going to a rite doesn’t make the person a hater. But a person who does hate will hate the rite he does not attend).

Logically, anybody who is a ‘hater’ is going to hate what he doesn’t do.

Far more people don’t attend the EF( as many of those who attend the OF have been at great pains to ‘prove’), so there are more EF haters, meaning people who hate the EF.

Right?

I agree generally with you except for the last para, which seems to be your conclusion.

From my experience with Catholics, we do not hate valid Catholic practices. Not going or knowing what is EF does not equal hating it just because some do not prefer it. It does not have to be like that. So I am rather perplexed by that assumption.

 

[stpurl]

Ah. To (hopefully) clarify, I mean that proportionally speaking, since there are a lot more people who attend and/or support the OF as their preferred rite than who attend and/or support the EF as their preferred rite, there are bound to be a greater number of people, all things considered, who dislike the EF than there are those who dislike the OF.

Even if one thought that every single person who liked the EF HATED the OF (which is absurd) and that of every person who liked the OF at MOST a fraction of a fraction were hostile to the EF --call that fraction something like 0.01%, an absurdly small number when one considers that pedophilia, as an example, affects some 4% of the population–the numbers of those who were hostile to the EF would still be greater than the entire (supposedly) population of those who liked the EF and ‘hated’ the OF.

Ergo, there are more people out there who are hostile (haters) to the EF than those who are hostile (haters) to the OF.