Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Jan 1st 2014 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Well, I'm glad you took the time to read the document.

If it seems like I am denigrating the OF, as you imply, I am only pointing out the absurdity of solving the issues with the EF as it was said in the 60's by replacing it with a mass where it almost seems like "anything goes." For the one issue I've heard on this thread about the EF, I can relate three or four I've seen including one that made me almost walk out of mass that day.

Take a listen to Micheal Voris' commentary that Bernard linked to. Listen to the litany of issues mentioned in the OF.

I've endured a parish where hand-holding was mandatory, as well as the inevitable "squeeze," (if you haven't, consider yourself blessed).

Army of Eucharistic Ministers where two priests and deacons are available and can distribute? Check!

Protestant or broadway themed hymns from the big three music producers? Check!

Boring or even heretical homilies? Check! (I even heard a priest give one about Judas climbing up to heaven. The demoniacs in the Gospel being simply mentally ill because we know better than the inspired authors? Yep, that too)

Churches where our Eucharistic Lord is placed in the back, or in a closet? We got those in Dayton. I was in one church which looked very traditional, with old style stained glass. Problem was there was no tabernacle either in the front or the back. Where did they take Our Lord? Who knows?

Check on that.

Some of the bad liturgical abuses, such as people being brought into the sanctuary? Had that happen.

There was even a mass where the priest brought his dog along into the sanctuary!

Come to think of it, I've just shown how banal and man-made the OF is (as Benedict XVI and Cardinal Burke have said) just from my own experiences.

Your mileage may vary, Paul, but surely you've seen your share of it too.



"Well, I'm glad you took the time to read the document."

I'm glad your glad. I would suggest you do the same ad then stop saying that Summorum says things it does not say or imply.

"If it seems like I am denigrating the OF, as you imply, I am only pointing out the absurdity of solving the issues with the EF as it was said in the 60's by replacing it with a mass where it almost seems like "anything goes." For the one issue I've heard on this thread about the EF, I can relate three or four I've seen including one that made me almost walk out of mass that day."

I have never said that there have not been abuses of the liturgy. In fact, in other treads I have gone out of my way to indicate that over the years I have seen the TLM abused as well as the Novus. I even incurred the wrath of other self styled traditionalist by pointing out that since no SSPX Priest or Bishop with some minor exceptions who celebrate the Mass constitutes a gross abuse of that form of the Mass since they do not have the faculties necessary from the local Ordinaries to celebrate the Mass in any form.

The continual harping on the well documented abuses of the Novus is misplaced because the self-styled traditionalists keep insisting that it is an inherent flaw in the Novus itself rather than placing the blame exactly where it belongs on those who celebrate the Mass, in any form, abusively.

I won't waste my time listening to Voris, I listenened to some of his drivel and laughed at his silliness and constant complaining and harping on issues of no real merit.

Your list of abuses in no way support your constant insistence that somehow this is inherent in the Novus itself and not the fault of thoise who committed the abuses.

And again you try to justify your stance by appeal to both Cardinal Burke and Pope Bendict by implying that it citing the abuses they too are saying it is inherent in the Novus when in fact they laid the balme exactly where it belongs, on those perpetrating the abuses.

By the way, I will leave to you to find the instances where the Roman Missal commands that lay people be brought into the sanctuary. There are severaland when yiou find them I would love to see you futilely try to call them abuses. They are in both the Novus and the TLM.

Yes, I have seen my share in both forms of the Mass.
LOCKED
Jan 1st 2014 new
(quote) Marina-1024960 said: Mark:
Moving backwards has never been demonstrated to be "better" than going forward to meet modern challenges. Those who don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. What is it about the past that we want to repeat? Slavery, social injustice, feudalism, lack of medical progress? When societies stop moving forward this is what they get.
Whenever I hear the word "correctness" in relation to the Liturgy, I think of Christ's condemnation of the Pharisees for strict adherence to empty tradition. I also remember Latin Masses in front of bored or mystified parishioners who couldn't participate fully even if they wanted to. Do you? What is the sense of the sacred when people are dozing off, praying the rosary, discussing last night's movie in between snatches of explanation of where we are now in the Missalette? When the celebrant says to me in my native language, "This is My body........." I am transformed by the words. I don't need the sound of a traditional bell to remind me to pay attention.
My experience, as I mentioned, has been longer than yours and I've been pre-and post the changes brought in by John XXIII. Last time I looked, no "truths" were either violated or discarded by the modest modernization carried out by the Vatican II documents. In fact, today we are closer to true Liturgical correctness due to the dedication of scholars who really understand the language of the early Church and have truth as their motivation; no one is translating what he thinks we should hear, according to his opinion of what Christ should have said and what the translator wanted Him to say. AND, we can hear it in a language we understand anywhere in the world. Moral decline stays pretty much the same - consider the Dark Ages period of history and compare it with modern times- war, conquest, murder, and destruction did not emerge full-grown from the forhead of modern times. It's obvious we are no longer taught history. Men will always allow evil to overcome them at some point; that's why we have been redeemed.
I wonder, often, what "truths" Traditionalists are afraid of losing........... "permissiveness" is usually the backlash of injustice or indifference; that's how we as imperfect beings react. Those who want to see better behavior should behave better. I don't attend Mass and remain a practicing Catholic due to "appeal" and the kind of fundamentalism I see lately should scare everyone. It sure scares me. How appalling to contemplate the unthinkable; a stagnant faith proclaimed in a dead language to the uncomprehending . Can anyone in his or her right mind think this is what Christ wants for His living Church? I'll bet the Hebrew forefathers considered Christianity to be "watered down" - what do you mean we don't stone offenders to death any more?? Tradition.........
I find it interesting that my experience with the TLM is at polar extremes.

1) Following the Mass

I was told that you need to attend the TLM 3 or 4 times to follow where the Mass is at. I and others that I know have found that statement to be completely correct. If you attend Mass a couple of times a week 2 weeks is plenty of time. There are also good books about the Mass.

2) Latin being a "dead language"

That is precisely why many hail theTLM as it is timeless and not open to abuse by new language or trends.

3) People talking during Mass and not paying attention

That is a fantastic description of what I and many have experienced in the Novus Ordo Church which led us to the TLM. That is the general feedback I have heard.

4) A "stagnant faith"

God is unchanging and the truth today will be the truth tomorrow. What is true and timeless is a treasure and not something to be discarded so that our lives can be made easier by relaxing our obligations.


LOCKED
Jan 1st 2014 new
Paul,

You mentioned that you read Summorum Pontiificum, but I found the origin for the line I got. It was from Benedict XVI's letter to the Bishops that accompanied the Moto Proprio. In it he writes the following:

For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The Ecclesia Dei Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

www.vatican.va

I would also turn your attention to something the older people who wrote (and started this post) might be surprised by, but which I find true.

Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.
You will also find something in this that we should all, myself especially, should take to heart: namely, that "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."

Paul, you'll find Benedict's quote mentioned, primarily about the abuses added into the celebration of the OF, some of which I mentioned, in the following two sources:

Rowland, Tracey (2008). Ratzinger's faith: the theology of Pope Benedict XVI. Oxford University Press.

Kocik, Thomas (2003). The reform of the reform?: a liturgical debate : reform or return. Ignatius Press.

He also makes mention of these issues in his book on worship entitled The Spirit of the Liturgy (2000, Ignatius Press). Of particular interest is his exegesis on false worship to the True God from the Golden Calf episode in Exodus (pg 22-23), as well as the importance of the organic nature of liturgical development in his later chapters.






LOCKED
Jan 1st 2014 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Paul,

You mentioned that you read Summorum Pontiificum, but I found the origin for the line I got. It was from Benedict XVI's letter to the Bishops that accompanied the Moto Proprio. In it he writes the following:

For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The Ecclesia Dei Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

I would also turn your attention to something the older people who wrote (and started this post) might be surprised by, but which I find true.

Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.
You will also find something in this that we should all, myself especially, should take to heart: namely, that "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."

Paul, you'll find Benedict's quote mentioned, primarily about the abuses added into the celebration of the OF, some of which I mentioned, in the following two sources:

Rowland, Tracey (2008). Ratzinger's faith: the theology of Pope Benedict XVI. Oxford University Press.

Kocik, Thomas (2003). The reform of the reform?: a liturgical debate : reform or return. Ignatius Press.

He also makes mention of these issues in his book on worship entitled The Spirit of the Liturgy (2000, Ignatius Press). Of particular interest is his exegesis on false worship to the True God from the Golden Calf episode in Exodus (pg 22-23), as well as the importance of the organic nature of liturgical development in his later chapters.






Again, the abuses are not inherent in the Novus. The only source of them are those individuals responsible for engaging in them.

Benedict was very emphatic on that point.

Every major Council of the Church have been followed by turmoil.

I am glad to see that you have finally read Summorum,. Hopefully now you will desist from misquoting it.

LOCKED
Jan 2nd 2014 new
Jane:
I had the privilege of hearing Mass in vernacular German while visiting in Germany a few years ago. What astonished me was the universality of the order of the Mass and the undivided attention of the German-speaking congregation. I neither speak nor understand a single syllable of German, but I had no great difficulty and certainly no anger that I was a guest in a foreign country and everything did not revolve around me. I have seen the same thing in many places BECAUSE people were personally involved..... you are correct that "catholic" does mean "universal" and the universe is filled with beings who are diverse. Christ said "Go and make disciples of all peoples."
"Poisoned by Vatican II" - a very interesting comment and one I don't personally understand. The refusal to recognize that the Church is a living entity taking truth into modern times seems like a poisoning to me.
You traditionalists miss something very important - language is not the sticking point, important as it is. Attitude is the sticking point. You may recall that speaking in multiple languages for the benefit and instruction (operative words) of differing peoples was first provided on Pentecost by the Holy Spirit . St. Paul has a lot to say bout hard-line tradition in relation to varying peoples; he is a good read on the subject Christ Himself told Peter "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church." You might want to read this passage further to see the kind of latitude Christ also provided the Church with, through Peter and his successors, men of their times. Does anyone actually think He has no knowledge of the progression of time, which is, after all, His creation? I suggest reading CS Lewis and Chretien de Troyes, classic (dare I say "traditional'?) Catholic theologians, regarding the consequences wrought by one who refused and refuses to change and the maturation of peoples and time. The earth is neither flat nor the center of the universe........
Another point of lack is that modern worship in no way denies the 2000-year old truths of the Church. Who is God? Still the same Person. Who is Christ? Still the same Person.
Who are we? Still the same beings redeemed by Him. What is the Church? Still our Mother and Bride of Christ. It passes my understanding how the grave consideration the Church fathers give any new concept on any subject at all can constitute liberalism in any form. My question remains in the face of the refusal to move demonstrated by Traditionalists: what truths are being denied by the Church's most wonderful response to modern times and what are you all afraid of? I don't really need to defend this response to changing times; people much smarter that I have already done that....refer back to "You are Peter........."
------FYI - the "language tangent"- English is a mixture of many bases, Latin being only one of them. Any dictionary indicates the origin of the words we use. A dictionary in ANY language does the same for that language. Very large parts of the human population have native languages that do not use Latin roots - Russians, Poles, Slavs, Africans, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians, to name but a few. I also suggest that if an opportunity ever arises to speak to an African priest ( our Vatican-II mandate church hosted a bishop of Darfur who has a price on his head in his own country because of his faith), ask him how and in what language the Church requires he best care for his people.

LOCKED
Jan 2nd 2014 new
(quote) Marina-1024960 said: Jane:
I had the privilege of hearing Mass in vernacular German while visiting in Germany a few years ago. What astonished me was the universality of the order of the Mass and the undivided attention of the German-speaking congregation. I neither speak nor understand a single syllable of German, but I had no great difficulty and certainly no anger that I was a guest in a foreign country and everything did not revolve around me. I have seen the same thing in many places BECAUSE people were personally involved..... you are correct that "catholic" does mean "universal" and the universe is filled with beings who are diverse. Christ said "Go and make disciples of all peoples."
"Poisoned by Vatican II" - a very interesting comment and one I don't personally understand. The refusal to recognize that the Church is a living entity taking truth into modern times seems like a poisoning to me.
You traditionalists miss something very important - language is not the sticking point, important as it is. Attitude is the sticking point. You may recall that speaking in multiple languages for the benefit and instruction (operative words) of differing peoples was first provided on Pentecost by the Holy Spirit . St. Paul has a lot to say bout hard-line tradition in relation to varying peoples; he is a good read on the subject Christ Himself told Peter "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church." You might want to read this passage further to see the kind of latitude Christ also provided the Church with, through Peter and his successors, men of their times. Does anyone actually think He has no knowledge of the progression of time, which is, after all, His creation? I suggest reading CS Lewis and Chretien de Troyes, classic (dare I say "traditional'?) Catholic theologians, regarding the consequences wrought by one who refused and refuses to change and the maturation of peoples and time. The earth is neither flat nor the center of the universe........
Another point of lack is that modern worship in no way denies the 2000-year old truths of the Church. Who is God? Still the same Person. Who is Christ? Still the same Person.
Who are we? Still the same beings redeemed by Him. What is the Church? Still our Mother and Bride of Christ. It passes my understanding how the grave consideration the Church fathers give any new concept on any subject at all can constitute liberalism in any form. My question remains in the face of the refusal to move demonstrated by Traditionalists: what truths are being denied by the Church's most wonderful response to modern times and what are you all afraid of? I don't really need to defend this response to changing times; people much smarter that I have already done that....refer back to "You are Peter........."
------FYI - the "language tangent"- English is a mixture of many bases, Latin being only one of them. Any dictionary indicates the origin of the words we use. A dictionary in ANY language does the same for that language. Very large parts of the human population have native languages that do not use Latin roots - Russians, Poles, Slavs, Africans, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians, to name but a few. I also suggest that if an opportunity ever arises to speak to an African priest ( our Vatican-II mandate church hosted a bishop of Darfur who has a price on his head in his own country because of his faith), ask him how and in what language the Church requires he best care for his people.

Excellent post. I have only one thing to add.

You charitably label them as "Traditionalists". They really are not, they are self-styled traditionalists. They harp on about returning to the pre vatican II Chgurch. Yet they are entirely clueless as to what the church was like before Vatican II.

They listen to and accept nonsense from the likes of Michael Voris as if he really knew what he harps and complains about.

Why do I label them as self-styles traditionalists? For the simple reason that if, in fact, they were traditionalists they would reflect on and remember Christ's words that he would remain with the Church even until the end of the world and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.. His promise that He and the Holy Spirit would perpetually protect the Church from all errors in faith and morals.

Yet, if these self-styled traditionalists are correct then what they are saying is that Hell has prevailed. If hell has prevailed then Chrits lied and if He lied He was not God. And if Christ was and is not God we are all, especially them, wasting out our time.

Vatican II taught no errors and the self-styled traditionalist's list of supposed errors are a bunch of utter nonsense.

They continually harp on all the abuses, including those of the "pedophile priests" as the supposed fruits of Vatican II. They refuse to place the blame for these abuses where it belongs, on those who committed the abuses.

They blame Vatican II and the Novus for all those who left the Church and or abandoned their vows by leaving religious life.They forget that one of the loudest cries among the faithful prior to Vatican II was the fact that the Latin of the Mass stood in the way of their understanding and appreciating of the Mass. When they got their wish with the introduction of the vernacular in the Novus those same complainers found that they no more understood or appreciated the mass in their native language then they did the Latin. So they left.

The self-styled traditionalist refuse to face the fact that there was a serious, unprecedented and destructive change in the culture world wide that took place after Vatican II that had nothing to do with Vatican II but did have a profound a disastrous effect on the post Vatican II Church as it had on every other aspect of life.
LOCKED
Jan 2nd 2014 new
Susan:
I will choose to take your final comment as a charitable concern for what you seem to think is my need to search for a parish that can solve problems only in ways valid in the past, making this view somehow one that "preserves" Catholicism, although I suspect your motive is more sarcasm than charity. It's OK...I understand that a modern view seems to threaten you, and I offer you my sympathy.
No one has yet said that Catholics are mandated to come out of the past and recognize that the world is a different place from those times, unfortunately. I can't wait until that happens. How exciting it will be when we all can look to the future, whatever its shape, and take Christ's message of making disciples of all people TO all people. It is an unfortunate flaw in humans that we often choose to ignore what we don't want to see, especially if that thing makes us uncomfortable or challenges an opinion that makes us feel "right" and powerful. Horrible abuses have always been promulgated by this terrible choice. Slavery was traditional and "right;" discrimination was traditional and "right." - until it wasn't. We are also guilty of falsely applying rose-colored glasses to a past fraught with its own problems that we ignore in favor of the way we want to see it; that's senseless and dishonest.
I have often heard that this kind of blindness is considered a sin against the Holy Spirit; some of the attitudes and verbiage on this subject appear to me to fit the description. Applying the truth of Christ and His Church to ANY times never changes the truth, only the times. Christ also made time, which belongs to Him, to go forward as a maturing creation. I would certainly not want to put myself in the position of refuting it; some theologians suggest that refutation is the attitude Satan has and uses to trick us. I suggest reading CS Lewis or Chretien de Troyes on this subject. They are traditional theologians whom you might understand.

Thank you for your concern (?), but my search is over( and has been ever since Vatican II opened the doors and summoned me and all Catholics through them ), having found just that parish as a Vatican-II mandate. This was the choice and request of the pastor, Abbot of a very old and traditional priestly order (the Norbertines),so that the parish could be more assertviely responsive to the modern problems faced by parishioners, and granted by the Pope. If these made this choice, I can have no argument.
LOCKED
Jan 2nd 2014 new
There seems to be a very misguided notion that the Church needs to embrace modern ways even if they are (potentially) sinful. I have also often come across arguments that because something is widely accepted or popular that it is right. That is moral relativism and it has gained momentum swiftly.

I usually stay away from this topic so as not to offend but this is a great example of modern living and beliefs.I just did a search of new CMers (female who joined in the last 2 days-a sample of 175 ladies) between 40 and 60 years of age. What % were not single or widows- 68%. That is a massive percentage and is quite representative. The Church never taught that divorce is OK. Now it is embraced and almost I dare say encouraged. I know of a priest who encouraged a man to leave his wife- the work of God? Perhaps but I see it differently. God has expectations of us and we go the extra mile to make them mushy to make our lives more worldly or easy.

Being "traditional" (or whatever description you assign to it) in your thinking is more than choosing what type of Mass you attend. It is a mindset and a way of life that we chose. The modern mindset is not, for example, for a priest to counsel a parishioner against using contraception. It is more likely directed towards making him/her a Eucharistic Minister and then helping navigate through the annulment process when a marriage becomes difficult. Is that the will of God? It sounds pastorally very kind but is it what God wants?





LOCKED
Jan 2nd 2014 new
(quote) Marina-1024960 said: You traditionalists miss something very important - language is not the sticking point, important as it is. Attitude is the sticking point. 









Attitude & belief is the difference. 1/ Modernism is founded on the belief that man is the supreme measure of all reality. Modernism does not simply seek progress and prosperity; it champions an entirely new worldview, one directly at odds with the Catholic faith.
Truth, according to the modernist, depends upon each individuals subjective perceptions and beliefs, not upon any objective, universal order descending from God. Truth thus changes from person to person, from age to age, from place to place, and modernism insists that human reason alone can determine what is right and wrong, good and bad, true and false. Most importantly, all individuals have a right by their very existence to exercise this subjective judgment as best pleases them, so long as they do not injure the rights of another individual.
2/ Catholics and modernists also disagree on the proper use of this liberty. Modernism claims that the human conscience is the supreme arbiter of good and evil for each individual; thus everyone can act as he pleases except in cases where this action would endanger the rights of someone else. Catholicism insists that this liberty is a great gift from God and can be exercised well or poorly. To choose what is objectively good and in accordance with Gods will is a proper and fitting exercise of this liberty; it makes a man truly free. On the other hand, to choose what is objectively evil and contrary to Gods will is an abuse. No one has the right to abuse this liberty, even if it does not seem to directly harm someone else because such an abuse always opposes and offends God, the supreme good.
LOCKED
Jan 2nd 2014 new
Well stated, Gabor. There was one person who told me that a friend of theirs was getting a divorce simply because her husband lost his job. Annullments seem to be almost handouts these days and people are allowed to get through the process for unwarranted reasons. It's scary because there was a thread on here(i think in the dating/single life thread) titled: "why are there so many men on here who's status is 'never married?,". Someone came onto a Catholic website, and complained that many men had never been previously married. Don't you see what's happening here? This is a total inversion of morality and an assault on Catholic teaching, from WITHIN. What Pius XII praised in his encyclical :Sacra Virginitas is being assaulted by the modernist attitude. The modern "apologists" aren't helping things either; in fact they're part of the problem as far as I'm concerned.

LOCKED
Posts 31 - 40 of 63