Why is it so hard to be traditional?

[wsxyz]

With all due respect…you just proved my point. It’s not our fault that the NO is deficient? PLEASE! That is YOUR opinion.

Oh, so it is your fault that the novus ordo is deficient?

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.

Great. That has nothing to do with the liturgy. That is the homily, and the quality thereof varies from priest to priest, even in traditional Masses. The novus ordo is not deficient with respect to the traditional Mass because of the homily, not because of practices not specified in the books, like Mass facing the people – although that is a problem in its own right – But because the prayers of the Mass were gutted by the author and his wrecking crew.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

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.

Hmmm I wonder how much of the decimation of the Catholic faith has to do with types like you always telling us that the NO Mass is deficient…

So…let me get this straight…I have to believe in the infallibility of the Pope…and types like you??? Ya…count me out. The Pope yes–you,not so much.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Posters may share their reasons for prefering one form of the mass over another. As long as both forms of the mass are authorized by the proper ecclesial authorities, no one may refer to either form with negative labels. In a Catholic forum, we must show respect for all things Catholic, especially the mass, in any form or any rite.

Citations with proper references and quotation marks are allowed, as long as the source is not hostile toward the Church or its legitimate authorities.

Thank you,

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[wsxyz]

Posters may share their reasons for prefering one form of the mass over another. As long as both forms of the mass are authorized by the proper ecclesial authorities, no one may refer to either form with negative labels. In a Catholic forum, we must show respect for all things Catholic, especially the mass, in any form or any rite.

Citations with proper references and quotation marks are allowed, as long as the source is not hostile toward the Church or its legitimate authorities.

Thank you,

Thomas Casey
Moderator

“Deficient” applied to the novus ordo Mass is not a negative label. It is a description of the poverty of the prayers in the Mass in comparison to other rites of Mass (not just the traditional Roman rite). Your desire to censor legitimate, non-polemic discussion achieves mainly that Catholics on this forum have no opportunity to even think about the serious issue of the content and theology of the prayers of the Mass. It is not a matter of preventing slander, but of preventing knowledge.

The comparison of the novus ordo Mass to the traditional Mass is not a matter of personal preference. It is a matter of, as a relatively famous Catholic commentator says, “What does the prayer really say?”

So go ahead, censor away. I have slandered nobody and nothing and your deletion of my posts serves not truth, but ignorance.

 

[floresco]

“Deficient” applied to the novus ordo Mass is not a negative label. It is a description of the poverty of the prayers in the Mass in comparison to other rites of Mass (not just the traditional Roman rite). Your desire to censor legitimate, non-polemic discussion achieves mainly that Catholics on this forum have no opportunity to even think about the serious issue of the content and theology of the prayers of the Mass. It is not a matter of preventing slander, but of preventing knowledge.

The word “deficient” is emotionally-loaded enough to upset people and derail attempts at non-polemic discussion. Using words that push people’s buttons does not serve truth. It is a distraction from truth. I have repeatedly made the same point that you were attempting to make about the prayers of the Mass and never been prevented from doing so. But I have taken care to use respectful language when I did so. This is not simply because any authorized form of Mass deserves such respect, but because this is the most effective way to make my point.

 

[wsxyz]

Citations with proper references and quotation marks are allowed, as long as the source is not hostile toward the Church or its legitimate authorities.

Cardinal Ratzinger, In Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104:
“The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication.They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.”

Ottaviani Intervention, signed by Cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci:
“The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.”

I think Cardinal Ratzinger up there was being somewhat harsher with the novus ordo Mass than I was in the posts that were deleted, so maybe you’ll have to delete him too.

 

[wsxyz]

Citations with proper references and quotation marks are allowed, as long as the source is not hostile toward the Church or its legitimate authorities.

Klaus Gamber, Reform of the Roman Liturgy:
“As we have already observed, the liturgical reform welcomed with so much idealism and hope by many priest and lay people alike has turned out to be a liturgical destruction of startling proportions–a debacle worsening with each passing year. Instead of the hoped-for renewal of the Church and of Catholic life, we are now witnessing a-dismantling of the traditional values and piety on which our faith rests. Instead of a fruitful renewal of the liturgy, what we see is a destruction of the forms of the Mass which had developed organically during the course of many centuries.”

“Since the conclusion of the Council, has our liturgical worship become more attractive to the faithful? Did the new liturgy contribute to strengthening faith and piety among our people? Hardly! Even during the short time that has elapsed since the introduction of the Novus Ordo in 1969, our churches have become emptier, the number of our priests and religious continues to decline steadily, and decline at an alarming rate. The reasons for these developments are many and varied, but we must admit that the liturgical reforms failed to arrest the negative trends they were to remedy, and that, more likely than not, they helped make them significantly worse.”

“Today, we are standing before the ruins of almost 2,000 years of Church tradition. We cannot help being apprehensive: the numerous reforms made have damaged Church tradition to such an extent that it will be difficult to bring it back again. Today, dare we even ask whether after such a deconstruction, a reconstruction of the traditional Order would be possible? But one must not give up hope.”

"But what possible advantage can be gained for the pastoral care of the faithful by changing the feast days of the saints in the Church calendar, changing the way of counting Sundays during the liturgical year, or even changing the words of Consecration? What possible advantage can be gained by introducing a new Order of Readings and abolishing the old one, or by making minor and unimportant adjustments to the traditional rite, and then finally, by publishing a new Missal? “Was all this really done because of pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the ‘Tridentine Mass’ impossible–because it no longer reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?”

“Liturgy and faith are interdependent. This is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernists) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology–for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.”

“In the end, we will all have to recognize that the new liturgical forms, well-intentioned as they may have been at the beginning, did not provide the people with bread, but with stones.”

 

[maurin]

The word “deficient” is emotionally-loaded enough to upset people and derail attempts at non-polemic discussion. Using words that push people’s buttons does not serve truth. It is a distraction from truth. I have repeatedly made the same point that you were attempting to make about the prayers of the Mass and never been prevented from doing so. But I have taken care to use respectful language when I did so. This is not simply because any authorized form of Mass deserves such respect, but because this is the most effective way to make my point.

I don’t believe–and I do say this with all due respect, both to the readers and to the Church Whom I love-- that ‘deficient’ is an emotionally charged word. I believe it is a quantatative word, as well as a qualitative one.

I also believe that a side by side by side comparison of the most common EP, #2, and Cranmers Canon as well as the Ancient Canon would lay this bare.

I mean no disrespect, nor do I wish to push anyone’s buttons. I am a Catholic with an opinion, and one not trying to force any agreement with it.

 

[wsxyz]

The word “deficient” is emotionally-loaded enough to upset people and derail attempts at non-polemic discussion. Using words that push people’s buttons does not serve truth. It is a distraction from truth. I have repeatedly made the same point that you were attempting to make about the prayers of the Mass and never been prevented from doing so.

And yet it is extremely important to emphasize that the traditional Mass is “better”, NOT just as a matter of subjective personal preference, but objectively as a matter of theology. It cannot simply be a matter of “to each, his own”, but a recognition that, while the novus ordo Mass is not going to disappear tomorrow, it is not “equal to” the traditional Mass. It is not a matter of language. It is not a matter of incense. It is not a matter of the orientation of the altar. It is not a matter of aesthetics generally. It is a matter of the prayers of the Mass and what they say about the Catholic conception of God, of man’s relationship to his Creator, and of man’s eternal destiny.

 

[Cristiano]

I don’t believe–and I do say this with all due respect, both to the readers and to the Church Whom I love-- that ‘deficient’ is an emotionally charged word. I believe it is a quantatative word, as well as a qualitative one.

I also believe that a side by side comparison of the most common EP, #2, and Cranmers Canon as well as the Ancient Canon would lay this bare.

I mean no disrespect, nor do I wish to push anyone’s buttons. I am a Catholic with an opinion, and one not trying to force any agreement with it.

As soon as you say that it is a qualitative one, automatically it becomes an emotionally charged one because in this case of the Mass you do not have an objective metric to measure its quality. Lacking in something does not mean worst, but it could mean something better (e.g. I wish I would lack quite a few pounds around my waistline).

 

[Cristiano]

And yet it is extremely important to emphasize that the traditional Mass is “better”, NOT just as a matter of subjective personal preference, but objectively as a matter of theology. It cannot simply be a matter of “to each, his own”, but a recognition that, while the novus ordo Mass is not going to disappear tomorrow, it is not “equal to” the traditional Mass. It is not a matter of language. It is not a matter of incense. It is not a matter of the orientation of the altar. It is not a matter of aesthetics generally. It is a matter of the prayers of the Mass and what they say about the Catholic conception of God, of man’s relationship to his Creator, and of man’s eternal destiny.

How do you measure “better” and how do you do it on an universal scale?

 

[wsxyz]

As soon as you say that it is a qualitative one, automatically it becomes an emotionally charged one because in this case of the Mass you do not have an objective metric to measure its quality. Lacking in something does not mean worst, but it could mean something better (e.g. I wish I would lack quite a few pounds around my waistline).

Language can evoke emotions. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not uncharitable to offend someone who is wrong-headed in the first place. Half of the city of El Paso was offended by Fr. Michael Rodriguez stating that homosexual activity is a grave sin leading to eternal damnation. That doesn’t mean it was uncharitable for him to say it. It would be uncharitable for him to NOT say it, and just let all of those souls fall unchallenged into hell.

 

[maurin]

As soon as you say that it is a qualitative one, automatically it becomes an emotionally charged one because in this case of the Mass you do not have an objective metric to measure its quality. Lacking in something does not mean worst, but it could mean something better (e.g. I wish I would lack quite a few pounds around my waistline).

But on the contrary, Cristiano, we have a superlative "metric with which to measure its quality: Tradition, and the Ancient Canon.

 

[maurin]

Language can evoke emotions. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not uncharitable to offend someone who is wrong-headed in the first place. Half of the city of El Paso was offended by Fr. Michael Rodriguez stating that homosexual activity is a grave sin leading to eternal damnation. That doesn’t mean it was uncharitable for him to say it. It would be uncharitable for him to NOT say it, and just let all of those souls fall unchallenged into hell.

Who said ,“right is right even if noone is doing it, and wrong is wrong even if everone is doing it”?

 

[wsxyz]

How do you measure “better” and how do you do it on an universal scale?

“better” is not the right word. But I was forbidden from using the “better” word, if you get my drift. But to approximately answer your question, by better I mean:

“theologically superior, in that the truths of the Catholic faith are more clearly expressed and in that through clarity of expression, all possibility of erroneous interpretation of the purpose and function of the holy Mass is excluded”

In other words, it is not possible to read a transcript of a celebration of the traditional Mass and be confused about what holy Mass IS, while it is possible to be so confused if one were to read a transcript of a celebration of the novus ordo Mass.

That is why the novus ordo Mass is dt.

 

[floresco]

I don’t believe–and I do say this with all due respect, both to the readers and to the Church Whom I love-- that ‘deficient’ is an emotionally charged word. I believe it is a quantatative word, as well as a qualitative one.

I also believe that a side by side by side comparison of the most common EP, #2, and Cranmers Canon as well as the Ancient Canon would lay this bare.

I mean no disrespect, nor do I wish to push anyone’s buttons. I am a Catholic with an opinion, and one not trying to force any agreement with it.

I am very willing to believe that people might use the word “deficient” without meaning any insult by it. There is a neutral meaning for the word, but I don’t expect it to come across. It is like the word “ignorant”. Taken neutrally, all it means is that a person does not know something. But most people, in my experience, are offended when called “ignorant”.

I agree that that a side by side comparison is useful. Perhaps you start a thread about this.

 

[maurin]

“better” is not the right word. But I was forbidden from using the “better” word, if you get my drift. But to approximately answer your question, by better I mean:

“theologically superior, in that the truths of the Catholic faith are more clearly expressed and in that through clarity of expression, all possibility of erroneous interpretation of the purpose and function of the holy Mass is excluded”

In other words, it is not possible to read a transcript of a celebration of the traditional Mass and be confused about what holy Mass IS, while it is possible to be so confused if one were to read a transcript of a celebration of the novus ordo Mass.

That is why the novus ordo Mass is dt.

hammer, nail, head. For example it is not possible to confuse the Sacrifice of God tthe Spotless Victim with that of praise and thanksgiving of the people.

 

[Cristiano]

But on the contrary, Cristiano, we have a superlative "metric with which to measure its quality: Tradition, and the Ancient Canon.

Can you please show me how this metric works? I am sorry to say but your answer sounds to me like propaganda. It reminds me of when someone once stated “We are the qualitative majority!”

 

[wsxyz]

I now reprise one of my deleted posts, without the “offensive” word, for which, I am told, it was deleted.
"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 dizza:t, 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 dizza:t 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, dizza:t.

Similarly, the novus ordo Mass is dizza:t compared to the traditional Mass. Just as one example, the offertory of the novus ordo Mass is dizza:t 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 dizza:cy. 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?

 

[floresco]

And yet it is extremely important to emphasize that the traditional Mass is “better”, NOT just as a matter of subjective personal preference, but objectively as a matter of theology. It cannot simply be a matter of “to each, his own”, but a recognition that, while the novus ordo Mass is not going to disappear tomorrow, it is not “equal to” the traditional Mass. It is not a matter of language. It is not a matter of incense. It is not a matter of the orientation of the altar. It is not a matter of aesthetics generally. It is a matter of the prayers of the Mass and what they say about the Catholic conception of God, of man’s relationship to his Creator, and of man’s eternal destiny.

I am torn on this question. I know enough about theology to understand you and I agree. In terms of how the prayers express Catholic theology, the ones of the EF are clearer and less open to misinterpretation. In this sense, I do think it is reasonable to say that theologically the EF is objectively better.

And yet, when we say this, we are not likely to be properly understood. Rather than communicating what we mean, we are likely to upset people so much that they can hear nothing else we have to say. All it does is feed negative views of “traditional Catholics”. We need to find a way past all the button-pushing language to tell people about this.