Youth and the Extraordinary Form

[floresco]

Geez. I didn’t say anyone was being disobedient. Good priests/bad priests? Huh?
This is a purely hypothetical discussion anyway, I’m not pretending to know any specific circumstance.

Obedience and trust. The priest has a vocation. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe part of that vocation is to critically analyze the Mass like this:

Not all priests are theologians. Some priests just have the minimal training in theology necessary to do their jobs. Some will go beyond that. Some priests even become theologians as their primary responsibility. People with interest and training in theology are likely to apply that knowledge.

I am confused about why you keep making references to obedience and trust. I thought you were implying that critical theological analysis of the Mass is disobedient but you are now denying that.

Honestly, this is your opinion, which you are projecting onto priests generally, which is not a fair thing to do.
Obedience is a part of loving the Church and trusting that those whose charge it is to make these decisions are doing so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Obedience is not the same thing as mute servitude. I would think Cardinal Ratzinger had the competence and authority to talk about this. I suppose the people he serves should listen to him?

I actually know priests who prefer the EF and can give an analysis as to why they think it is better. Out of obedience, they also celebrate the OF and always speak respectfully of it.

Cardinal Ratzinger set us an example of critical analysis of the OF so I think that I am doing a good job of listening to him by imitating him.

 

[clem456]

I really didn’t see her as trying to portray this as being the attitude of priests in general, but just helping to try to explain why he believes some FSSP priests would be distressed and upset if they were asked to say the OF. I think her assessment is correct and I don’t understand why you are attacking it?? It is not official Church teaching that we must hold that there is nothing in one form of the mass that makes it a better or worse expression of the faith, because of that there is nothing disobediant in thinking that one form of the Mass is a better expression of the Catholic faith, and so priests who believe this are not, as such, being disobedient in any respect. Yes, such people are sometimes also disobedient, but having that opinion is not, in itself, wrong.

Everyone understands the official teaching (I think). The statement speaks for itself. The post is not about valuing different expressions. Notice the words “serious concerns” “valid” “far superior” “second best” “very distressed”. The poster projects his opinion on this matter on to priests generally.

Originally Posted by floresco
There are people who have serious concerns about the OF even though they acknowledge it as a valid Catholic Mass. It is common for the men who are attracted to the FSSP to be like this. For example, if a priest thinks that the EF is a **far superior **expression of Catholic theology, he might feel like saying the OF is giving God second best. I can imagine myself being **very distressed **if I were in such a situation.

I never said any priest was disobedient for having an opinion. Please re-read.

 

[clem456]

I am confused about why you keep making references to obedience and trust. I thought you were implying that critical theological analysis of the Mass is disobedient but you are now denying that.

I did not say that.

 

[thewanderer]

Everyone understands the official teaching (I think). The statement speaks for itself. The post is not about valuing different expressions. Notice the words “serious concerns” “valid” “far superior” “second best” “very distressed”. The poster projects his opinion on this matter on to priests generally.

I never said any priest was disobedient for having an opinion. Please re-read.

Again, I really don’t see how what Floresco said was being projected onto priests in general and I entirely agree with her assessment of this being the case for some FSSP priests.

I am glad that you are not implying that a priest is disobedient for having such an opinion. However I am very confused as to why you brought up obedience since this is not case.

 

[clem456]

Again, I really don’t see how what Floresco said was being projected onto priests in general and I entirely agree with her assessment of this being the case for some FSSP priests.

I am glad that you are not implying that a priest is disobedient for having such an opinion. However I am very confused as to why you brought up obedience since this is not case.

Good subject for a another thread, maybe in spirituality.

 

[floresco]

I did not say that.

Perhaps you could clarify what point you are trying to make about obedience. You have used the word many times but I am not sure what it is you think we must obey. There is no rule of the Church that we may not think that one form of Mass is a better expression of Catholic theology than the other.

 

[clem456]

Perhaps you could clarify what point you are trying to make about obedience. You have used the word many times but I am not sure what it is you think we must obey. There is no rule of the Church that we may not think that one form of Mass is a better expression of Catholic theology than the other.

Obedience is not simply rigid adherence to a set of rules. Others can probable elaborate on the spirituality of obedience better than I can. I do know it involves losing our attachment to our own preferences and inclinations, a certain docility ( I don’t have much of it).

From the the original discussion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by floresco
There are people who have serious concerns about the OF even though they acknowledge it as a valid Catholic Mass. It is common for the men who are attracted to the FSSP to be like this. For example, if a priest thinks that the EF is a far superior expression of Catholic theology, he might feel like saying the OF is giving God second best. I can imagine myself being very distressed if I were in such a situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by severus68
A good priest should not be thinking and making comparisons in that manner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by floresco
Priests are trained in theology and therefore able to think about the forms of Mass in terms of their theological implications. I think it is very likely that many priests compare the theology of the two forms (when they are familiar with both) and have preferences based on this theology. I do not see how this would make them bad priests.

Obedience would indicate a priest, or anyone else, (since we are not talking specifics anyway, right? Or are we? are there specific priests who hold these views? or are you simply surmising?)… would not be using his knowlege of theology to be “parsing” the Mass the way your post indicates. Obedience would ask us to honor the Mass in a positive way, not simply tolerate it in servitude because we belive it inferior somehow. In addition to follwoing the rules, we accept the will of the Church and the wisdom of those whose calling it is to shepherd us. Should bring us tons of joy.
Again, I know of no priests who have these “concerns” about the Mass. Do you know specifically? or are you projecting your opinion on to priests?. If this is your opinion, maybe it’s better you not reinforce it by dragging priests into the discussion.

 

[floresco]

Obedience would indicate a priest, or anyone else, (since we are not talking specifics anyway, right? Or are we? are there specific priests who hold these views? or are you simply surmising?)… would not be using his knowlege of theology to be “parsing” the Mass the way your post indicates. Obedience would ask us to honor the Mass in a positive way, not simply tolerate it in servitude because we belive it inferior somehow. In addition to follwoing the rules, we accept the will of the Church and the wisdom of those whose calling it is to shepherd us. Should bring us tons of joy.
Again, I know of no priests who have these “concerns” about the Mass. Do you know specifically? or are you projecting your opinion on to priests?. If this is your opinion, maybe it’s better you not reinforce it by dragging priests into the discussion.

Perhaps a specific example would help. I went to an approved EF Mass yesterday. The priest, who celebrates both EF and OF, talked about why he thought the older Church calendar was better than the current one. By the older calendar we are in the season of Septuagesima now, a sort of pre-Lent. His homily was on the value and usefulness of this period leading into Lent and how to apply it in our lives.

This priest compared the older and new liturgical calendars and came to the conclusion that one was better than the other. This is a priest in good standing, loyal to the Magisterium. Being obedient does not mean that we cease to think about things or to have opinions on matters that are open to opinion.

 

[LittleHannah]

I’m a young person myself. I do love the Latin Mass very much. Well, and all things traditional. I just wish it was more available. But, it will be all in due time. I’m sure of it. I long for the day when that happens. The Latin Mass is the Mass of the Saints. But I love the Novus Ordo too. They are both the Holy Mass after all, but the Latin is just so beautiful and reverent.

 

[Cat]

I all fairness, your experience is with modern fads, right?

I think a rite that has existed in more or less the same form for 1,500 years is not a fad.

I am confident that unless the Church suppresses it again, the Latin Mass will outlive everything else.

Oh, good heavens, no. For a while, the Evangelical Protestants were (and still are) getting into “lectio divina” and “confessions” and “silence” and “candles” and “Latin” and “chanting”…

The “opponents” claimed that all this stuff was putting Evangelical Protestants in danger of going down the Roman Road.

Anything can be a “fad” if it is unfamiliar to someone. Yes, the Latin Mass has been around for many centuries, but for those who have never experienced it, it is brand new.

 

[Cat]

That is very true. I grew up in a major East Coast Archdiocese. No one brought their infants or toddlers to Mass. The mother stayed home with the young ones while the father went with the older children. When he came home, the mother went to a later Mass.

Of course, that was in the days when we had three and more Masses every Sunday (every day in fact).

It is good to know this. I kind of suspected this was the case.

My mother didn’t bring me or my brother to church (Protestant) until we were in 1st grade and old enough to appreciate it. For us, our early experiences in church were like going to Disneyland–everything was so BIG and BEAUTIFUL! I absolutely adored the lady who played the piano, and wanted to be just like her (and today, I am!). And I loved all the stories about Jesus, and the “big church” and the pastors–it was all so wonderful and I was never bored. I also loved being able to read–that really helped.

I don’t think being kept at home until I was 7 years old made me any less interested in church and God. I think it actually helped. My mother taught us about Jesus at home, so we were “ready” for church.

IMO, this shows a respect for babies/children, and a realistic understanding and appreciation of their maturity level.

 

[Indyann]

Perhaps you could clarify what point you are trying to make about obedience. You have used the word many times but I am not sure what it is you think we must obey. There is no rule of the Church that we may not think that one form of Mass is a better expression of Catholic theology than the other.

The problem ensues when you present yours or anyone elses’ opinion as fact. It is not fact, only opinion.

Having grown up with the Latin Mass, it is my opinion that the OF can be just as reverent as the EF. That is my opinion. And as you certainly must know opinions are 100% subjective.

 

[Brendan]

Obedience is not simply rigid adherence to a set of rules. Others can probable elaborate on the spirituality of obedience better than I can. I do know it involves losing our attachment to our own preferences and inclinations, a certain docility ( I don’t have much of it).

Aquinas defined it as the Virtue by which we conform our Will to the one who has authority.

.

 

[Brendan]

Not all priests are theologians. Some priests just have the minimal training in theology necessary to do their jobs. .

Priestly formation, per the Vatican, involves a Bachelors level of Study in Philosophy, and then Masters level work in Theology, resulting in a Masters of Divinity (M.Div)

So every priest has done at least Masters level work in Theology.
But then again, your statement is correct, in that a Masters in Theology is the minimum required to their jobs.

That said, many priests do not keep up on their theology work, such as reading reputable theological journals on a regular basis, and thus the skills atrophy.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Oh, good heavens, no. For a while, the Evangelical Protestants were (and still are) getting into “lectio divina” and “confessions” and “silence” and “candles” and “Latin” and “chanting”…

The “opponents” claimed that all this stuff was putting Evangelical Protestants in danger of going down the Roman Road.

Anything can be a “fad” if it is unfamiliar to someone. Yes, the Latin Mass has been around for many centuries, but for those who have never experienced it, it is brand new.

I do not see this novelty thing in EF communities. Most EF communities are quite stable; they don’t slap together overnight and fall apart overnight. I’ve been on the EF scene for several years now, and novelty is not what I seek. For example, I abhor LifeTeen Masses with all my might.

 

[floresco]

The problem ensues when you present yours or anyone elses’ opinion as fact. It is not fact, only opinion.

Having grown up with the Latin Mass, it is my opinion that the OF can be just as reverent as the EF. That is my opinion. And as you certainly must know opinions are 100% subjective.

I have been talking about critical analysis of the forms of Mass. These are essentially theological opinions. While they are opinions rather than facts, they are not 100% subjective in the way that questions of personal taste are 100% subjective. A theological opinion must be based on facts and has objective elements to it.

For example, I might make the claim that the Ordinary of the OF has no explicit statements of the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. (They do occur in some Propers.) This is a question of objective fact. I might also claim that the Catholic Church teaches the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. This is also a question of fact. Then I might claim that it is better for the liturgy to explicitly state this point of Catholic doctrine. This is not a fact but an opinion. However, it is an opinion that could be supported with further facts and arguments. It is an opinion that could be judged as well-founded or not.

This is very different from the sort of opinion we are giving when we say that we prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla. This sort of opinion is 100% subjective. One cannot support it with facts or arguments. These two kinds of opinions are very different and I think that we see a lot of confusion when we do not keep them distinct.

 

[LittleHannah]

I do not see this novelty thing in EF communities. Most EF communities are quite stable; they don’t slap together overnight and fall apart overnight. I’ve been on the EF scene for several years now, and novelty is not what I seek. For example, I abhor LifeTeen Masses with all my might.

As for LifeTeen, I definetly agree with you. I don’t abhor the Mass itself, just the abuses. I went to a parish near where I live once in the evening on a sunday. They had this band (I thought it was rock), girls half dressed bringing up the gifts, etc. I had a hard time realizing I was actually at Mass. I’m sorry, but is that what the young people are in the Church?! The Holy Mass is NOT entertainment. Period. And people should not want it to be entertainment. There is a difference between worshiping your God and being entertained to satisfy yourself. It’s NOT about us, It’s about God.

 

[Indyann]

Aquinas defined it as the Virtue by which we conform our Will to the one who has authority.

.

That is a simple definition. I love it.

If only everyone would abide by it!

 

[floresco]

Priestly formation, per the Vatican, involves a Bachelors level of Study in Philosophy, and then Masters level work in Theology, resulting in a Masters of Divinity (M.Div)

So every priest has done at least Masters level work in Theology.
But then again, your statement is correct, in that a Masters in Theology is the minimum required to their jobs.

That said, many priests do not keep up on their theology work, such as reading reputable theological journals on a regular basis, and thus the skills atrophy.

At the university where I did my M. Div. it was considered a basic degree, as opposed to an advanced degree like an M. Th. We did not have to write a thesis and it did not have the language requirements normally associated with a Masters. It was not an academically rigorous program. (I would have preferred a different degree, but at the time it was the highest theology degree offered on a part-time basis.)

 

[Indyann]

I have been talking about critical analysis of the forms of Mass. These are essentially theological opinions. While they are opinions rather than facts, they are not 100% subjective in the way that questions of personal taste are 100% subjective. A theological opinion must be based on facts and has objective elements to it.

For example, I might make the claim that the Ordinary of the OF has no explicit statements of the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. (They do occur in some Propers.) This is a question of objective fact. I might also claim that the Catholic Church teaches the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. This is also a question of fact. Then I might claim that it is better for the liturgy to explicitly state this point of Catholic doctrine. This is not a fact but an opinion. However, it is an opinion that could be supported with further facts and arguments. It is an opinion that could be judged as well-founded or not.

This is very different from the sort of opinion we are giving when we say that we prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla. This sort of opinion is 100% subjective. One cannot support it with facts or arguments. These two kinds of opinions are very different and I think that we see a lot of confusion when we do not keep them distinct.

Well, Jayne, it seems as though you think that you are more educated, more theologically correct and in a much better position to express your opinions than our priests, bishops and even our Pope.

That is just my opinion, but is evidenced by your own posts.