Why is it so hard to be traditional?

[ElizabethPH]

Critiquing and criticizing are not tthe same thing, Elizabeth. What fear do you have to see Cranmer"s Communion Service Juxtaposed to the Eucharistic prayer that you would say, “go away?”

Because you need to go away to start a thread on the differences between the Latin Mass and your Cranmers communion. Now if I was so afraid I would not be here to begin with. And certainly I wouldn’t be putting myself out there by responding in the first place. I’ve already seen those sort of ‘critiques’ as you call them. They only impress me as further criticism of the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

 

[Momofmyangels]

With all due respect…you just proved my point. It’s not our fault that the NO is deficient? PLEASE! That is YOUR opinion. For the OP–Really…you haven’t seen the NO attacked? Then you haven’t opened your eyes enough honey…this is the kind of stuff I hear regurgetated at us ALL the time. “Our traditional Mass is better…we learn the real stuff…that confession is important…that there is a heaven and hell…” Well guess what…I hear that at my NO Mass too.

I don’t believe I said that I “haven’t seen the NO attacked.” What I did say was that when you say that you prefer to attend the EF only you are labeled with all sorts of things, but if you say that you prefer to attend the OF only, no one bats an eyelash. I also said that I know there are those out there who lack charity and present a “holier than thou attitude” but that is not everyone.

 

[maurin]

Because you need to go away to start a thread on the differences between the Latin Mass and your Cranmers communion. Now if I was so afraid I would not be here to begin with. And certainly I wouldn’t be putting myself out there by responding in the first place. I’ve already seen those sort of ‘critiques’ as you call them. They only impress me as further criticism of the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Critique does not imply criticism, Elizabeth. At least not destructive criticism. I did not present the idea of juxtaposing Cranmer’s communion service with the Ancient Mass, but with the Eucharistic Prayer, specifically the Canon of EPII. Try taking our new moderator’s PP advice, and please pay attention to your tone. It is being received as severe and unwarranted. I’m certain, though that in the interest of following the guidance of the Moderator that that is not your intention.

Has anyone else who may read this ever juxtaposed the two? I’d be interested in hearing you thoughts. For me, that is one of the issues which make it difficult to be a Traditional Catholic in the present times.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Critique does not imply criticism, Elizabeth. At least not destructive criticism. I did not present the idea of juxtaposing Cranmer’s communion service with the Ancient Mass, but with the Eucharistic Prayer, specifically the Canon of EPII. Try taking our new moderator’s PP advice, and please pay attention to your tone. It is being received as severe and unwarranted. I’m certain, though that in the interest of following the guidance of the Moderator that that is not your intention.

Has anyone else who may read this ever juxtaposed the two? I’d be interested in hearing you thoughts. For me, that is one of the issues which make it difficult to be a Traditional Catholic in the present times.

By the way the definition of: cri·tique   /krɪˈtik/ [kri-teek] Show IPA noun, verb, -tiqued, -ti·quing.
–noun

1. an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.
2. a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.
3. the art or practice of criticism.
   –verb (used with object)
4. to review or analyze critically.

 

[Momofmyangels]

The gist that I am getting from this thread is this;

Because some traditionally minded individuals have presented their opinion about the EF, OF,CITH vs. COTT or any other issues in an uncharitable or inconsiderate manner, then any traditionally minded person that comes along therefore deserves to be treated with disdain and uncharity because all traditionalists “think alike.” This is so untrue. Of course there are those who are outspoken and lack charity, but is it not best to look past that and still remain charitable to the next person that comes along? Is it not best to assume the good in people rather than assume everyone has some malicious ulterior motive. And, who knows, perhaps our continual example of charity even in the face of repeated insulting “attacks” will be just that, an example, and others will see that that really works better than approaching everything with negativity.

I have a true affection for the EF (as I have stated) and it truly breaks my heart that I cannot attend it routinely. I also know that many Catholics feel the same about the OF, and why not, it is a valid Mass and Jesus is present. I know the thought of having the OF taken away when you prefer it or have a sincere affection for it is heartbreaking and I would not wish that on anyone.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Critique does not imply criticism, Elizabeth. At least not destructive criticism. I did not present the idea of juxtaposing Cranmer’s communion service with the Ancient Mass, but with the Eucharistic Prayer, specifically the Canon of EPII. Try taking our new moderator’s PP advice, and please pay attention to your tone. It is being received as severe and unwarranted. I’m certain, though that in the interest of following the guidance of the Moderator that that is not your intention.

Has anyone else who may read this ever juxtaposed the two? I’d be interested in hearing you thoughts. For me, that is one of the issues which make it difficult to be a Traditional Catholic in the present times.

You are correct in assuming/implying that my tone was not meant to be severe and you are correct it was not my intention.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t believe I said that I “haven’t seen the NO attacked.” What I did say was that when you say that you prefer to attend the EF only you are labeled with all sorts of things, but if you say that you prefer to attend the OF only, no one bats an eyelash. I also said that I know there are those out there who lack charity and present a “holier than thou attitude” but that is not everyone.

If we want to be perfectly accurate, we can note that there have been criticisms (amounting to absolute denigration and even charges of heresy!) on both sides.

I have seen people who claim that the EF is a mumbo-jumbo pastiche which needs to hurry up and die because it is nothing but a dead relic with no possible use, and its adherents are hidebound closet women-haters who think they’re holier than thou.

I have also seen people who claim that the OF is nothing but a Protestant travesty illegally foisted onto people thus leaving the Catholic Church anything from in a state of siege to ‘having a vacant see’, and that the adherents of THIS Mass are nothing but closet Freemasons who are trying to work from the inside to bring Armageddon, and who are so pantheistic and anti-Christian but think that ‘their way’ is the ‘only way’.

So . .depending on your own personal preference, you’re probably more likely to ‘notice’ the posts from those who seem to be criticizing your preference.

If you like the EF, you’ll notice more posts that criticize it, and you’ll notice fewer posts criticizing the OF.

If you like the OF, you’ll notice more posts that criticize IT, and you’ll notice fewer posts criticizing EF.

And you’ll tend to associate ‘key phrases’ with that kind of criticism even if they weren’t really meant (by the individual poster) to be critical.

And you’ll tend to (after a time) automatically label any poster who uses a key phrase as carrying the baggage of all the worst and nastiest criticism you have read on the subject to date.

Pretty soon, you won’t be addressing real posts and posters, but simply doing a knee response–defensive, offensive, or both–against the whole ‘package’ that you think the poster was saying. . .

And it doesn’t help that when a really good dialogue gets going where posters start to say, “Hey, maybe I was over-reacting, people don’t seem to be criticizing the way I thought they would, they are talking respectfully, they keep on saying that both Masses are valid, they seem to be nice normal people who just have different preferences but respect each other”. . .

and then somebody decides to throw in a post of “The EF is just stupid and nobody understands it and if you go there you’re not a real Catholic”

Or somebody else “The OF is just a Protestant scam and full of abuse and if you go there you’re not a real Catholic”. . .

and any good feelings and understanding and respect that has been peeping out will** instantly vanish and the whole argument will start up again, worse than before.**

How I wish it would. Just. Stop.

**Both Masses are equally valid and a preference for one over another is perfectly valid. Attend the Mass of your choice in joy and peace, extol its virtues if you will but stop trying to find ‘vices’ in the other form. **

We KNOW that abuses were (in some places, at some times) rife in the OF. But the actual OF as it was intended in Vatican II is reverent and beautiful.

We KNOW that sometimes priests ‘rushed through’ the EF and some people never bothered to ‘follow mindfully’. But the actual EF as it is intended is reverent and beautiful.

So please stop harping on things of ‘long ago’ as if they are the norm now. They are not. And please stop criticizing others if they happen to prefer a Mass you do not. The world, contrary to your opinion, does not revolve around you. Prefering something you do not doesn’t make another person wrong and you ‘right’; it makes them like something that you don’t. That’s all. I happen to ‘prefer’ vanilla ice cream to chocolate but that doesn’t mean that I hate chocolate ice cream, or think it’s ‘inferior’ or not even worthy to be called ice cream!!!

 

[ElizabethPH]

If we want to be perfectly accurate, we can note that there have been criticisms (amounting to absolute denigration and even charges of heresy!) on both sides.

I have seen people who claim that the EF is a mumbo-jumbo pastiche which needs to hurry up and die because it is nothing but a dead relic with no possible use, and its adherents are hidebound closet women-haters who think they’re holier than thou.

I have also seen people who claim that the OF is nothing but a Protestant travesty illegally foisted onto people thus leaving the Catholic Church anything from in a state of siege to ‘having a vacant see’, and that the adherents of THIS Mass are nothing but closet Freemasons who are trying to work from the inside to bring Armageddon, and who are so pantheistic and anti-Christian but think that ‘their way’ is the ‘only way’.

So . .depending on your own personal preference, you’re probably more likely to ‘notice’ the posts from those who seem to be criticizing your preference.

If you like the EF, you’ll notice more posts that criticize it, and you’ll notice fewer posts criticizing the OF.

If you like the OF, you’ll notice more posts that criticize IT, and you’ll notice fewer posts criticizing EF.

And you’ll tend to associate ‘key phrases’ with that kind of criticism even if they weren’t really meant (by the individual poster) to be critical.

And you’ll tend to (after a time) automatically label any poster who uses a key phrase as carrying the baggage of all the worst and nastiest criticism you have read on the subject to date.

Pretty soon, you won’t be addressing real posts and posters, but simply doing a knee response–defensive, offensive, or both–against the whole ‘package’ that you think the poster was saying. . .

And it doesn’t help that when a really good dialogue gets going where posters start to say, “Hey, maybe I was over-reacting, people don’t seem to be criticizing the way I thought they would, they are talking respectfully, they keep on saying that both Masses are valid, they seem to be nice normal people who just have different preferences but respect each other”. . .

and then somebody decides to throw in a post of “The EF is just stupid and nobody understands it and if you go there you’re not a real Catholic”

Or somebody else “The OF is just a Protestant scam and full of abuse and if you go there you’re not a real Catholic”. . .

and any good feelings and understanding and respect that has been peeping out will** instantly vanish and the whole argument will start up again, worse than before.**

How I wish it would. Just. Stop.

**Both Masses are equally valid and a preference for one over another is perfectly valid. Attend the Mass of your choice in joy and peace, extol its virtues if you will but stop trying to find ‘vices’ in the other form. **

We KNOW that abuses were (in some places, at some times) rife in the OF. But the actual OF as it was intended in Vatican II is reverent and beautiful.

We KNOW that sometimes priests ‘rushed through’ the EF and some people never bothered to ‘follow mindfully’. But the actual EF as it is intended is reverent and beautiful.

So please stop harping on things of ‘long ago’ as if they are the norm now. They are not. And please stop criticizing others if they happen to prefer a Mass you do not. The world, contrary to your opinion, does not revolve around you. Prefering something you do not doesn’t make another person wrong and you ‘right’; it makes them like something that you don’t. That’s all. I happen to ‘prefer’ vanilla ice cream to chocolate but that doesn’t mean that I hate chocolate ice cream, or think it’s ‘inferior’ or not even worthy to be called ice cream!!!

 

[maurin]

By the way the definition of: cri·tique   /krɪˈtik/ [kri-teek] Show IPA noun, verb, -tiqued, -ti·quing.
–noun

1. an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.
2. a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.
3. the art or practice of criticism.
   –verb (used with object)
4. to review or analyze critically.

First I would like to thank you for the kindness of this and your previous reply. We may disagree, even passionately so, without being unkind.

I can only repeat what I have already said twice before: critique does not NECESSARILY involve destructive criticism, as is evidenced by the definitions you have graciously provided. Your effort is received with gratitude.

 

[ElizabethPH]

First I would like to thank you for the kindness of this and your previous reply. We may disagree, even passionately so, without being unkind.

I can only repeat what I have already said twice before: critique does not NECESSARILY involve destructive criticism, as is evidenced by the definitions you have graciously provided. Your effort is received with gratitude.

OK Maurin, I do understand what you mean. But like I’ve already said juxtaposing Cranmers communion and the OF would indeed be a negative ‘critique’. But that’s just me. I apologize. I think something like what Tantum ergo’s post, so well put, has happened to me and this thread.

 

[Momofmyangels]

If we want to be perfectly accurate, we can note that there have been criticisms (amounting to absolute denigration and even charges of heresy!) on both sides.

I have seen people who claim that the EF is a mumbo-jumbo pastiche which needs to hurry up and die because it is nothing but a dead relic with no possible use, and its adherents are hidebound closet women-haters who think they’re holier than thou.

I have also seen people who claim that the OF is nothing but a Protestant travesty illegally foisted onto people thus leaving the Catholic Church anything from in a state of siege to ‘having a vacant see’, and that the adherents of THIS Mass are nothing but closet Freemasons who are trying to work from the inside to bring Armageddon, and who are so pantheistic and anti-Christian but think that ‘their way’ is the ‘only way’.

So . .depending on your own personal preference, you’re probably more likely to ‘notice’ the posts from those who seem to be criticizing your preference.

If you like the EF, you’ll notice more posts that criticize it, and you’ll notice fewer posts criticizing the OF.

If you like the OF, you’ll notice more posts that criticize IT, and you’ll notice fewer posts criticizing EF.

And you’ll tend to associate ‘key phrases’ with that kind of criticism even if they weren’t really meant (by the individual poster) to be critical.

And you’ll tend to (after a time) automatically label any poster who uses a key phrase as carrying the baggage of all the worst and nastiest criticism you have read on the subject to date.

Pretty soon, you won’t be addressing real posts and posters, but simply doing a knee response–defensive, offensive, or both–against the whole ‘package’ that you think the poster was saying. . .

And it doesn’t help that when a really good dialogue gets going where posters start to say, “Hey, maybe I was over-reacting, people don’t seem to be criticizing the way I thought they would, they are talking respectfully, they keep on saying that both Masses are valid, they seem to be nice normal people who just have different preferences but respect each other”. . .

and then somebody decides to throw in a post of “The EF is just stupid and nobody understands it and if you go there you’re not a real Catholic”

Or somebody else “The OF is just a Protestant scam and full of abuse and if you go there you’re not a real Catholic”. . .

and any good feelings and understanding and respect that has been peeping out will** instantly vanish and the whole argument will start up again, worse than before.**

How I wish it would. Just. Stop.

**Both Masses are equally valid and a preference for one over another is perfectly valid. Attend the Mass of your choice in joy and peace, extol its virtues if you will but stop trying to find ‘vices’ in the other form. **

We KNOW that abuses were (in some places, at some times) rife in the OF. But the actual OF as it was intended in Vatican II is reverent and beautiful.

We KNOW that sometimes priests ‘rushed through’ the EF and some people never bothered to ‘follow mindfully’. But the actual EF as it is intended is reverent and beautiful.

So please stop harping on things of ‘long ago’ as if they are the norm now. They are not. And please stop criticizing others if they happen to prefer a Mass you do not. The world, contrary to your opinion, does not revolve around you. Prefering something you do not doesn’t make another person wrong and you ‘right’; it makes them like something that you don’t. That’s all. I happen to ‘prefer’ vanilla ice cream to chocolate but that doesn’t mean that I hate chocolate ice cream, or think it’s ‘inferior’ or not even worthy to be called ice cream!!!

Just wondering…was this directed at me or everyone in general. Because if I truly came across as what you have described above, then I am sorry I ever started this thread and I hope it just gets closed.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

The gist that I am getting from this thread is this;

Because some traditionally minded individuals have presented their opinion about the EF, OF,CITH vs. COTT or any other issues in an uncharitable or inconsiderate manner, then any traditionally minded person that comes along therefore deserves to be treated with disdain and uncharity because all traditionalists “think alike.” This is so untrue. Of course there are those who are outspoken and lack charity, but is it not best to look past that and still remain charitable to the next person that comes along? Is it not best to assume the good in people rather than assume everyone has some malicious ulterior motive. And, who knows, perhaps our continual example of charity even in the face of repeated insulting “attacks” will be just that, an example, and others will see that that really works better than approaching everything with negativity.

I have a true affection for the EF (as I have stated) and it truly breaks my heart that I cannot attend it routinely. I also know that many Catholics feel the same about the OF, and why not, it is a valid Mass and Jesus is present. I know the thought of having the OF taken away when you prefer it or have a sincere affection for it is heartbreaking and I would not wish that on anyone.

Because people are human. Maybe EVERYONE can learn a lesson from this. I honestly really don’t know why we true faithful Catholics spend so much time attacking each other when the world in its self is going to hell.

Hopefully you will see…I try to just defend the OF…not attack the EF. And as I’ve already stated…I receive CITH but I try to be reverent of those that want to receive COTT. I of course haven’t seen what you have gone through so I can’t tell you about your experiences. I do know here in Oregon…it’s hard enough just to be Catholic…we are definetly in the minority. Most people here would say they are no religion.

 

[maurin]

OK Maurin, I do understand what you mean. But like I’ve already said juxtaposing Cranmers communion and the OF would indeed be a negative ‘critique’. But that’s just me. I apologize. I think something like what Tantum ergo’s post, so well put, has happened to me and this thread.

How could honest exposition ever be considered a negative?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just wondering…was this directed at me or everyone in general. Because if I truly came across as what you have described above, then I am sorry I ever started this thread and I hope it just gets closed.

No, Mom, it was not directed at you, and it isn’t a criticism. It’s kind of a summation of how people tend to deal with the whole question of the OF and the EF --that most people are nice, normal people who simply prefer one to the other (for a variety of different reasons, all of them nice and normal), but a few bad apples go to extremes and spoil things (and you are not one of those bad apples at all).

Unfortunately in this question and a host of other things, you get some people who have strong feelings for one practice, concept, Mass form, etc. and who turn that feeling into an 11th commandment of “others must see this as I see it or else they are wrong bad people”. (and it works for both sides)

And those are the people who seem to yell the ‘loudest’ or to be remembered the most, and then anybody who even seems to be advocating one practice is tarred with the brush of whatever the ‘extremist’ said, when most people aren’t trying to be extreme at all!

 

[Momofmyangels]

No, Mom, it was not directed at you, and it isn’t a criticism. It’s kind of a summation of how people tend to deal with the whole question of the OF and the EF --that most people are nice, normal people who simply prefer one to the other (for a variety of different reasons, all of them nice and normal), but a few bad apples go to extremes and spoil things (and you are not one of those bad apples at all).

Unfortunately in this question and a host of other things, you get some people who have strong feelings for one practice, concept, Mass form, etc. and who turn that feeling into an 11th commandment of “others must see this as I see it or else they are wrong bad people”. (and it works for both sides)

And those are the people who seem to yell the ‘loudest’ or to be remembered the most, and then anybody who even seems to be advocating one practice is tarred with the brush of whatever the ‘extremist’ said, when most people aren’t trying to be extreme at all!

Thank you for the clarification. And I see what you are saying is true. I’m beginning to wonder where charity has gone…

 

[ElizabethPH]

How could honest exposition ever be considered a negative?

Honest exposition? Honestly Maurin what is your intent. Why don’t you just come out with it. Instead of beating around the bush with side by side comparisons and such. Just say what you mean. No ill or bad intent on my part, I apologize if you think so.

 

[maurin]

Honest exposition? Honestly Maurin what is your intent. Why don’t you just come out with it. Instead of beating around the bush with side by side comparisons and such. Just say what you mean. No ill or bad intent on my part, I apologize if you think so.

Did you mean to say, “in all honesty, maurin, I am a bit suspicious of your intentions. What is it that you are trying to say?”

Because that would appear to me to be a frank, yet non-belligerent way of addressing a fellow interlocutor, instead of dismissing in a condescending and aggressive way someone with whom you are in udder disagreement.

I repeat my question from above: what do you fear that has allowed, you to take such an inappropriate and unecessary attitude and believe it not to be received as ill or bad intent on your part?

 

[ElizabethPH]

Did you mean to say, “in all honesty, maurin, I am a bit suspicious of your intentions. What is it that you are trying to say?”

Because that would appear to me to be a frank, yet non-belligerent way of addressing a fellow interlocutor, instead of dismissing in a condescending and aggressive way someone with whom you are in udder disagreement.

I repeat my question from above: what do you fear that boldly take such an inappropriate attitude?

I said it the way I did because I didn’t know how else to put it. Again I apologize, coming across condescending and aggressive with an inappropriate attitude is certainly not my intent.

Peace Out Maurin

God Bless

 

[maurin]

And with thy spirit, Elizabeth.

 

[wsxyz]

"JKirkLVNV:

wsxyz:

It is simply a recognition that the foundational principles of the NO were destructive, having the intent to make Catholic worship acceptable to Lutherans and other similar protestant sects, and of the obvious quantitatively measurable destruction of the faith that followed in its wake.

That’s where you wont’ get agreement. It is not a fact that the “foundational principles of the NO were desructive.” That is your opinion. It is not a fact that we were trying to make it more palatable to Lutherans. That has been denied by the Holy See and by the Protestant observers at the council.

But affirmed by the guy who wrote it. It is a fact.

And the “quantitatively measurable destruction of the faith that followed in its wake?” Also not a fact and any respectable social scientist would laught at such an assertion. “Correlation does not prove causation” and there is no way to prove that nuns left the convent, people left the churches, etc, because of the OF.

Who said anything about proof of causation? I said that a “quantitatively measurable destruction of the faith that followed in its wake,” which is true. Now you can choose to believe that the decimation of Catholic faith and practice had nothing to do with the novus ordo liturgy, and I can choose to believe it has very much to do with the novus ordo liturgy, but what I actually said is objectively factual.

JKirkLVNV:

wsxyz:

The average Catholic of the early 21st century … was brought up in the NO, or that’s all that is available to them, and they don’t understand why its problematic.

A great number of us (and apparently the Holy Father himself) would disagree that it is problematic at all.

You know no more than I whether the Pope considers the novus ordo Mass ‘problematic’. You assume that, since the Pope celebrates the novus ordo Mass, that he considers it unproblematic. But he did call it “banal” and “manufactured”. I recognize that, even if the Pope does consider the novus ordo Mass problematic, that he can hardly undo the last 40 years with the stroke of a pen. So he tries to lead by example for the moment, trusting in God to solve the problems over time.

JKirkLVNV:

wsxyz:

With respect to the traditional Mass, the Novus Ordo is deficient, and I have no doubt that the common Mass of the 22nd century will be closer to the traditional Mass than to the Novus Ordo.

Again, your last paragraph is simply rife with personal opinion, which is, quite fortunately, not shared by the Vicar of Christ on Earth or the greater part of the Church Militant.

First, it obvious that it possible for one rite of Mass to be deficient compared to another. If, for example, a priest were simply to ascend the altar, take the host and say “This is my body”, then take the chalice and say “This is my blood”, and then receive body and blood, then you have a valid Mass. It is, however, deficient.

Similarly, the novus ordo Mass is deficient compared to the traditional Mass. Just as one example, the offertory of the novus ordo Mass is deficient compared to the offertory of the traditional Mass. Simply reading the two makes that pretty clear. Sure, I guess technically it is just my “personal opinion” that excising, for example, the suscipe sancte Pater and offerimus tibi, which ask God to receive the sacrifice for the sake of our eternal salavtion, is a deficiency. Do you want to argue that it’s better not to ask God to accept the holy sacrifice as reparation for our sins unto our salvation?