Why stick with tradition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coolduude

Guest
Yes, ‘tradition’ with a little ‘t’. What I basically mean is, why is the Latin, pre-VII Mass better than the current NO Mass? Why stick with a TLM over that? What’s the main ‘beef’ with the NO Mass and why? Please don’t just say 'EMHCs". Please explain why you feel that way.

And keep it civil. I do not want this thread closed down.

Thank you,
coolduude:cool:
 
I would say that some tradition is worth sticking to because it is stuff that has managed to stand the test of time, perhaps being improved over the years, so it has shown itself to be of some quality.
 
This is my personal view, I don’t presume to speak for others.

The Latin Mass transformed my spiritual life from the age of 16 on. (I’m 35) I find it to be extraordinarily beautiful and uplifting, it feels inspired. There is a sense of sacred mystery around it which brings me in touch with the transcendence of God and helps me delve more deeply into the mysteries of our Faith. The music, rites, sacred art, vestments and architecture are (generally) of the noblest intent, that being, the lifting of man to God.

There is a sincerity about the people who worship at such masses. Rare do you find bored. uninspired people rolling their eyes, glaring at their watches, muttering to their spouse, “Come on father, let’s get the show on the road!” (And yes I have heard that kind of thing at OF masses). You know you are worshiping with a group of people who truly want to give God their best and strive for holiness in their personal lives. It is a relief to worship in a place, that at least liturgically, the people are of one heart and mind.

I have been to many reverent OF Masses where everything was done to the letter and Gregorian chant was incorporated. There was still something lacking. Again, this is my perspective. I believe Mass in both forms is valid, I just feel more uplifted and dignified in my place as a servant of my Creator at TLM.

As for the Latin, two things, one, it keeps us in touch with the heritage of our Church, it has been the official language of the Roman Church for close to 2000 years. It also serves a practical purpose of uniting the faithful from all walks of life, all around the world, diverse in many ways, but untied in one common language.

It is also very practical. When I travel to other countries it can be frustrating to not be able to participate in the Mass in, say, Dutch. At one time a Catholic could go anywhere in the world and feel right at home, praying the Mass in a unified language. It
just makes sense.
 
coolduude said:
Yes, ‘tradition’ with a little ‘t’. What I basically mean is, why is the Latin, pre-VII Mass better than the current NO Mass? Why stick with a TLM over that? What’s the main ‘beef’ with the NO Mass and why? Please don’t just say 'EMHCs". Please explain why you feel that way.

And keep it civil. I do not want this thread closed down.

Thank you,
coolduude:cool:
Click to expand...
Hitting just one reason for the Latin part of the question. Because Vatican II told us to keep the Latin. The vernacular was allowed for SOME parts of the Mass. The documents tell us.
 
Uh oh… I’ve seen some of these threads so I hope that everyone keeps it civil 🙂
Ok, for me I actually go to BOTH NO and EF (NO on Sat, and EF on Sun). It was funny because during RCIA I was drawn big time to the EF without even knowing anything about it at all. I found a parish that had EF and a webcam and for about a month I watched it via webcam scared to go but I finally went there, sat in back by myself (this was before I had my first Communion so I just sat while everyone else went up).
The first time I went I was like amazed at the amount of reverence and how beautiful it all was. I had no clue what was being said as I’d never been to a Latin Mass and didn’t know any Latin, but still I just was in awe the entire time. I went back again the next week, and the next and so on. I finally got a Latin/English Missal and started learning how to follow along and realized as I did, what everyone means by the “Sacrifice of Mass”, that is something I never understood at the NO Mass.
Ok, so here’s the differences I see and this only concerns my own opinion at two different parishes.
NO
*Talking before, DURING (yes, during), and after Mass
*People at the NO parish (my home parish) don’t seem too reverent (other than a few), and seem like they go for social hour sometimes (I don’t mean to judge them, but it seems that way sometimes and it’s not everyone)
*The Mass itself seems like it’s lacking in some way, although I can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint it
*I do like that I can understand it but think that so much was taken away when it was changed (based on what I’m reading in my Latin Missal), that all of that could have just stayed and made the Mass so much better.
*I like that my NO parish is kind of smaller so people there know you and care about you
EF
*About 95% of the people that go to the parish with the EF are very respectful, usually no talking before, def none during, and very little afterward.
*REVERENCE
*I love the extra prayers that are in the EF, and how much they show our need for God in all things
*The EF parish is bigger so nobody there really has a clue who I am or knows my name even though I’ve been going for 6 months or so now

All this being said, I think if I had come into the Church and there wasn’t the NO I may have been super confused at first, but I would have stuck it out simply because even without knowing what was being said, I could tell how reverent it was. The NO was good for me in the beginning to help me learn, but I prefer the EF now.
 
coolduude said:
Yes, ‘tradition’ with a little ‘t’. What I basically mean is, why is the Latin, pre-VII Mass better than the current NO Mass? Why stick with a TLM over that? What’s the main ‘beef’ with the NO Mass and why? Please don’t just say 'EMHCs". Please explain why you feel that way.
Click to expand...
And away we go…

The EF is not better than the OF and the OF is not better than the EF (nor are they better or worse than any Eastern Divine Liturgy). To say one is better is to denegrate the other, and traditionalists do not denegrate the Mass.

I am feed quite nicely at the OF however I understand where the Mass came from and appreciate how the EF can enrich someone and vice-versa. I rejoice that my brothers and sisters who love the EF have more access to it and I appreciate their extending the same courtesy to me - traditionalists are models of God’s love and charity.

Not all traditions are good or worth keeping (remember we are talking little “t”) however our traditions are the foundation that the Church was built upon so to embrace them is to embrace, remember and honor those that walked this path before us.

We have been graced, more than any religion, with 2000+ years of the finest minds, holiest people, greatest theologians and incredible Saints and to ignore their thoughts and teachings is to be ignorant of the tremendous gift the Church is from God.

So in short my brother, embrace all that is good with tradition but do so with a keen eye and an open mind, knowing that tradition does not stop and the graces pouring forth from the Church today will be the traditions of our children’s children.

My $0.02. YMMV.
 
coolduude said:
Yes, ‘tradition’ with a little ‘t’. What I basically mean is, why is the Latin, pre-VII Mass better than the current NO Mass? Why stick with a TLM over that? What’s the main ‘beef’ with the NO Mass and why? Please don’t just say 'EMHCs". Please explain why you feel that way.

And keep it civil. I do not want this thread closed down.

Thank you,
coolduude:cool:
Click to expand...
Just a few points.

First off the EF has been THE Mass of the Church for about 1500 years. It developed organically over the centuries. Many (or most?) of the saints celebrated this same Mass. As our current Pope points out, the OF is a spontaneously manufactured product. It is a brand new form of Mass that has only existed for just over 40 years.

I find that the EF teaches me much more than the OF. The entire ritual makes the Sacrifice of the Mass more real, especially with the reverence.

For more I would suggest watching an interview with Fr. Paul Nicholson on Real Catholic TV

That’s a start. It’s getting late so I’m off to bed.

Reg.
 
Because the “t” tradition points to “T” tradition which points to every belief and doctrine on which our faith was founded and built. One should not abandon heritage and Tradition just because it is old or out of the current norm. The attempts to “modernize” the church have led to a loss of both “T” and “t” tradition. I offer the current state of our Church as evidence that removing “t” and “T” Traditions and weakening doctrine for the sake of becoming more relevant and modern was/is a bad idea that needs to be corrected. Read Pope Saint Pius X’s encyclicals on modernism. Every dilema we currently face in the Church can be found in those documents along with His warnings of what would happen if modernism was allowed to affect our Traditions. His Holiness was correct.

2nd Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy
[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.
 
coolduude said:
Yes, ‘tradition’ with a little ‘t’. What I basically mean is, why is the Latin, pre-VII Mass better than the current NO Mass? Why stick with a TLM over that? What’s the main ‘beef’ with the NO Mass and why? Please don’t just say 'EMHCs". Please explain why you feel that way.

And keep it civil. I do not want this thread closed down.

Thank you,
coolduude:cool:
Click to expand...
Which came first? Which is 1500 years old? From which has sprung thousands of Saints? The TLM will always be good. Its not a matter of comparing it to the OF. It stands on its own.

You ask what the main Beef with the NO Mass is. What makes you think there has to be one. I am 54 years old. I have been around since the changes took place to begin with. I prefer the EF. It seems that the OF attempts to embrace Protestantism in various ways. The music the rubrics etc. The TLM is throughly Catholic. Whereas the OF leans more towards embracing those of other faiths.

Some of us who were Catholic before the OF prefer to worship under the tenets of strictly the Catholic Faith as practised for centuries. We dont necessarily have a beef with those who dont. But it does seem like those who dont , have a beef with us for our preferance for whatever reason.
 
These traditions are based upon the Sacred Tradition and manifest the deposit of faith in the lives of the faithful. Not only are they securely grounded upon divine revelation but allow the believer to be molded through practising these devotions (which contain a whole world or cosmic view) to the likeness of Christ. We are not simply immaterial creatures, but our sanctification arises through matter and the flesh.
 
coolduude said:
Yes, ‘tradition’ with a little ‘t’. What I basically mean is, why is the Latin, pre-VII Mass better than the current NO Mass? Why stick with a TLM over that? What’s the main ‘beef’ with the NO Mass and why? Please don’t just say 'EMHCs". Please explain why you feel that way.

And keep it civil. I do not want this thread closed down.

Thank you,
coolduude:cool:
Click to expand...
In my earlier post I never mentioned my “main beef”.
I suppose it would have to be two things:
  1. The priest facing the people. Aside from theological reasons, it just makes more logical sense to me for the priest to face the same direction as the congregation. That way he is clearly leading our prayer (just as a general would lead an army).
    Along with that is:
  2. Standing in to receive Jesus. (All the children in my local parish are taught to only receive Him standing and in the hand.) It has never seemed reverent enough to me to receive this way. It is easier for me to be aware that we are in God’s physical presence when using a more humble posture.
That being said, let me stress the fact that, although I prefer the EF, I still find great beauty (usually) and humbleness in receiving our Lord at the OF.

Reg.
 
I almost can’t explain why I like the EF so much… probably it would be that the priest cares enough to follow the rubrics, and people also tend to care much more and don’t show any gross signs of irreverence. Also there are prayers that the OF doesn’t have that are so much more beautiful. And ad orientem, and bells, and incense, are guaranteed rather than just disposable options.

But I have recently been to some really AMAZING OF’s that really break the mold. I love that having a beautiful Mass using the Ordinary Form is possible, even though it does allow such deviations. It would be nice to see a tightening of the rubrics in the near future 🙂
 
ljubim said:
I almost can’t explain why I like the EF so much… probably it would be that the priest cares enough to follow the rubrics, and people also tend to care much more and don’t show any gross signs of irreverence. Also there are prayers that the OF doesn’t have that are so much more beautiful. And ad orientem, and bells, and incense, are guaranteed rather than just disposable options.

But I have recently been to some really AMAZING OF’s that really break the mold. I love that having a beautiful Mass using the Ordinary Form is possible, even though it does allow such deviations. It would be nice to see a tightening of the rubrics in the near future 🙂
Click to expand...
In particular the Offertory prayers that in the Novus Ordo were removed and replaced by something very lame in comparison. One is Catholic, the other…not.
 
Rachel said:
Ok, so here’s the differences I see and this only concerns my own opinion at two different parishes.
NO
*Talking before, DURING (yes, during), and after Mass
*People at the NO parish (my home parish) don’t seem too reverent (other than a few), and seem like they go for social hour sometimes (I don’t mean to judge them, but it seems that way sometimes and it’s not everyone)
*The Mass itself seems like it’s lacking in some way, although I can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint it
*I do like that I can understand it but think that so much was taken away when it was changed (based on what I’m reading in my Latin Missal), that all of that could have just stayed and made the Mass so much better.
*I like that my NO parish is kind of smaller so people there know you and care about you
EF
*About 95% of the people that go to the parish with the EF are very respectful, usually no talking before, def none during, and very little afterward.
*REVERENCE
*I love the extra prayers that are in the EF, and how much they show our need for God in all things
*The EF parish is bigger so nobody there really has a clue who I am or knows my name even though I’ve been going for 6 months or so now

All this being said, I think if I had come into the Church and there wasn’t the NO I may have been super confused at first, but I would have stuck it out simply because even without knowing what was being said, I could tell how reverent it was. The NO was good for me in the beginning to help me learn, but I prefer the EF now.
Click to expand...
None of what you mentioned above has anything to do with the form of the Mass. I can take you to a OF Mass 1/2 hour from here that has nothing of what you complain about above:

The people are reverent and the church is silent before and after Mass;
The Introit, gradual, alleluia, offertory and communion hymn are taken from the Propers and chanted in Latin, in Gregorian chant;
The Kyriale (kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Angus) are also in Gregorian chant and taken from the appropriate Kyriale for the feast/season
The dialog, the readings, the preface, the EP, and the Pater are all chanted in French plainchant
The Mass is not rushed, taking about 50 minutes on a weekday and just under an hour and a half on Sundays (one Mass, on Pentecost, with the solemn profession of a young monk, lasted 2 hours)
There are NO liturgical abuses
No EMHC either, everyone receives from a priest.

So please tell me what your complaints have to do with the form of the Mass, instead of the discipline of the parish and parishioners?
 
Certainly by Advent next year it will only be a matter of personal preference, even now it largely is a matter of preference though one can argue that some of the dynamic equivolency makes some of the theology and scripture references not as apparent (however still very much present in actuality) in the current OF Mass.

At the end of the day though, you’re still receiving the necessary graces of consuming the body and blood of Christ, Jesus, as well as the graces received from meeting your weekly obligation.

Personally, I appreciate having access to the EF Mass on the first Sunday of the month. My preference is for the traditional, the more traditional the better. I’m still happy at a well run OF mass, and I can even occationally appriciate a more contemporary service provided the music is not secular and theologically sound per the teachings of the Church.

I guess I’m a take the Mass as it comes kind of guy, but when I get to go to an EF Mass I will because I feel like I’m getting some thing extra on a very personal level. I’m not suggesting there are more graces, or at least more graces in general… Rather, just a specific grace (or blessing) with regard to feeling a little more connected to the communion of saints going back at least 1,500+ years of Latin Mass.
 
The problem with this word is that it is an official form of the Church: “Holy Tradition” is invoked often. I find it very queer that an institution can speak of its adherence to ancient traditions when it allows the same to be swept away 1930 years after its establishment. “Why stick with tradition” can be answered with the sound-byte: “because the Church officially teaches the holiness of Tradition and the Magisterium”. The more germane question is “why abandon tradition when the very body in question claims adherence to tradition”?
 
Your exchange is going well. However, beware that I deleted a post for its disrespect for the OF. Posting disrespectful comments about any form or any rite of the mass is not allowed.

Thank You

Thomas Casey
Moderator
 
My reasons are:
  1. When you compare the wording (which is a translation in the case of the Traditional Latin Mass), it is different. The TLM language is richer, more vertical, and more realistic. For example, the TLM is very explicit that we might have enemies because the faith.
  2. It is the mass of the ages: the mass of the saints.
  3. It is not subject to fads and abuse.
  4. It was not developed in the 1960s.
  5. Generally, the priest to say it and the parishioners who attend it, do not subscribe to the modern habit of wishful thinking.
 
OraLabora said:
None of what you mentioned above has anything to do with the form of the Mass. I can take you to a OF Mass 1/2 hour from here that has nothing of what you complain about above:

The people are reverent and the church is silent before and after Mass;
The Introit, gradual, alleluia, offertory and communion hymn are taken from the Propers and chanted in Latin, in Gregorian chant;
The Kyriale (kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Angus) are also in Gregorian chant and taken from the appropriate Kyriale for the feast/season
The dialog, the readings, the preface, the EP, and the Pater are all chanted in French plainchant
The Mass is not rushed, taking about 50 minutes on a weekday and just under an hour and a half on Sundays (one Mass, on Pentecost, with the solemn profession of a young monk, lasted 2 hours)
There are NO liturgical abuses
No EMHC either, everyone receives from a priest.

So please tell me what your complaints have to do with the form of the Mass, instead of the discipline of the parish and parishioners?
Click to expand...
She said she found the NO lacking, but couldn’t p(name removed by moderator)oint it. So question answered ? Then she described the behavior of some parishioners at her home parish. I think you are assuming she may have something in her heart that may not be there.

She hasn’t rejected the NO or left her parish. Nice to have a reverent parish nearby as you have, but I think anyone can understand the impression one would get seeing the same behavior weekly at a NO parish as she described.

She’s not cutting and running from the parish where she was brought into the Church because of the behavior.

Rachel, hat’s off for offering it up and not leaving your parish. :tiphat:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top