How A Radtrad Can Prefer The Ordinary Form

[Veridicus]

I have found in attending many different Masses in a new city over the last month that there is an obvious and profound difference between the respect paid to the prayer space of the Church after Mass. I know this has little directly to do with commenting on the liturgy itself or upon Radtrads or whatever...but I know that after an EF Mass I am afforded a few minutes of quiet to pray with my wife in the church. After almost EVERY OF Mass (either where I am now or in any given parish in my home town), the church becomes a cacophony of personal conversations before the priest has even processed out. I really don't want to paint a broad stroke and really I attend both the OF & EF Masses equally at this point. But in my experience, if someone was a Radtrad I can see how even non-liturgical aspects of the church atmosphere around the liturgy can affect his preferences.

[kafka]

I think you are headed in the wrong direction Benn.

Both forms have their strengths and weaknesses. Both forms are an imperfect reflection of the heavenly feast.

I say two general problematic tendencies with the traditional Catholics who support the EF is that they tend to treat it as an end in itself, an eternal unchangeable value, or at worst an idol. And they tend to use the EF as a symbol of their dissatisfaction with the teachings of Vatican II and the changes in the Church since Vatican II. And this is not what the Mass is for.

[kafka]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1282605101' post='2162227']
I was not aware until my wife informed me today that there are rules against Catholic on Catholic debate in Open Mic. Had I known that, I would not have posted here, since I knew that trying to defend this position would result in argument (hence the thread description).

Therefore, out of respect to dUSt and my beautiful wife, I humbly ask a moderator to close this thread.

I will be replying individually to those who posted their thoughts. Thanks for reading!
[/quote]
I think youre fine, the moderators can move it to debate if they see fit

[Tridenteen]

[quote name='Veridicus' timestamp='1282605211' post='2162229']
I have found in attending many different Masses in a new city over the last month that there is an obvious and profound difference between the respect paid to the prayer space of the Church after Mass. I know this has little directly to do with commenting on the liturgy itself or upon Radtrads or whatever...but I know that after an EF Mass I am afforded a few minutes of quiet to pray with my wife in the church. After almost EVERY OF Mass (either where I am now or in any given parish in my home town), the church becomes a cacophony of personal conversations before the priest has even processed out. I really don't want to paint a broad stroke and really I attend both the OF & EF Masses equally at this point. But in my experience, if someone was a Radtrad I can see how even non-liturgical aspects of the church atmosphere around the liturgy can affect his preferences.
[/quote]


JMJ
My parents really like the silence after Mass. We have a period of silence after Mass, and the altar twits come out and make their thanksgiving, and then remove the kneelers pads from the Communion rail and so on.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' timestamp='1282602069' post='2162200']
In response to the question in the title of this thread:

He can't. A Western Catholic traditionalist is, by definition, a person who prefers the Traditional Latin Mass.
[/quote]

Whose definition?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Tridenteen' timestamp='1282605544' post='2162235']
JMJ
My parents really like the silence after Mass. We have a period of silence after Mass, and the altar twits come out and make their thanksgiving, and then remove the kneelers pads from the Communion rail and so on.
[/quote]

Architecturally it is important to remember that the nave of the Church is not the Narthex.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1282605273' post='2162231']
I think you are headed in the wrong direction Benn.

Both forms have their strengths and weaknesses. Both forms are an imperfect reflection of the heavenly feast.

I say two general problematic tendencies with the traditional Catholics who support the EF is that they tend to treat it as an end in itself, an eternal unchangeable value, or at worst an idol. And they tend to use the EF as a symbol of their dissatisfaction with the teachings of Vatican II and the changes in the Church since Vatican II. And this is not what the Mass is for.
[/quote]
I did not see a dissatisfaction with the teachings of Vatican II. The liturgy that came after the council is not a "teaching" of the council. In fact, I'm going to have to say that Ben is hardcore, and looks to our current pope who has spoken strongly against the conciliar liturgy. If there is any doubt with what he says, I recommend looking into what Bugnini said over 40 years ago, as well as some other prominent figures. The council teaches nothing knew, but affirms "old" things. Therein is nothing to be cross about.

[kafka]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' timestamp='1282606554' post='2162245']
I did not see a dissatisfaction with the teachings of Vatican II. The liturgy that came after the council is not a "teaching" of the council. In fact, I'm going to have to say that Ben is hardcore, and looks to our current pope who has spoken strongly against the conciliar liturgy. If there is any doubt with what he says, I recommend looking into what Bugnini said over 40 years ago, as well as some other prominent figures. The council teaches nothing knew, but affirms "old" things. Therein is nothing to be cross about.
[/quote]
what I have said I have said. The second part of the post was just general like I said and not directed personally to Benn.

In any case I feel bad about some of the things I see here. I understand the devotion and idealism, the fervor and zeal but there are a lot of bad influences creeping around. There are wolves on both sides. A lot of bad theology and misinterpretation. Confusion, disunity, heresy, schizm, strife, all over. God help us.

[IcePrincessKRS]

At fides' jack's request I am closing this thread. He didn't realize Catholic vs. Catholic debate is against the guidelines. I will confer with the other moderators (and Dust if I can catch him) about possibly re-opening it. For now I will err on the side of caution. Peace.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' timestamp='1282608282' post='2162256']
At fides' jack's request I am closing this thread. He didn't realize Catholic vs. Catholic debate is against the guidelines. I will confer with the other moderators (and Dust if I can catch him) about possibly re-opening it. For now I will err on the side of caution. Peace.
[/quote]

I have gotten feedback from some of the others and we decided to reopen the thread and move it to debate. It will give everyone a chance to practice charity and respect in a dialogue where many do not see eye to eye. If it becomes ugly we will close it again.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1282594024' post='2162128']
As a former schismatic, I always find the conflict between traditionalist Catholics and liberal Catholics to be intriguing, and I am always eager to jump in the middle of the debate. Always being a fair and balanced person myself, I naturally take the position of the traditionalist and begin vehemently attacking the liberal - because that is what's fair.

Anyway, in the last several years I've come to the conclusion that the Ordinary Form is almost always the better alternative - for the following reasons:[/quote]

I don't know which Mass you went to as a traditionalist, but I was a "schismatic" for a few years too and don't agree with your conclusion at all.


[quote]1. The Church herself (led by the Holy Spirit) encourages people to attend their local parishes (the parish they belong to by default/location) - hard to say no to this one.[/quote]

The Church wants all of us to attend Mass. What does this have anything to do with the OF being better? They are both a valid Mass and going to either is better than not going at all. I don't think the Church has said anything more than this about the OF being preferable over the EF.

[quote]2. I've come to understand probably the biggest difference between EFers and OFers; in almost any debate, the EFers are right, and they know they're right, which leads to a disproportionate amount of pride in the hearts of EFers. I realize now that being right 99% of the time isn't as important as humbly subjecting oneself to the wishes of the Magisterium, even when those wishes come from ill-formed decisions of fallible priests. Fall back on no. 1. [/quote]

Irrelevant. The value of something (whether it be the EF, OF or anything on any subject whatsoever) is not inherently tied to the holiness of its proponents. We're all sinners, EF and OF attendees alike.

[quote]3. The EF is more reverent than the OF. This carries all the way to... the end of the liturgy. Outside of Mass, traditionalist EFers are just as absorbed in the world and material things as are traditionalist OFers. Regardless of which type of valid Mass is attended, true spiritual growth occurs through doing the Father's will, as given to us through the Church (whether fallibly or infallibly). Fall back on no. 1.[/quote]

See above.

[quote]4. EFers are generally as close-minded toward the OF as OFers are toward the EF. It really takes a knowledge of both sides to make any liturgical comparison between the two. (I guess this doesn't really put one above the other - but true regardless).[/quote]


Again, irrelevant. the mind and heart of the EF attendee doesn't make or break the inherent value of the EF Mass. Besides while this may be true in many cases, its not by any means universal. I myself prefer the EF and believe its a "better" Mass (although both are valid and holy), but I attend the OF.

That said, I do believe the OF is a valid and acceptable choice, even for a traditionalist, as it is a good and holy Mass. But I don't see why or how a traditionalist would prefer it over the EF. And if there is a good reason to prefer either Mass over the other, then it should be based in the differences between the Masses themselves and not based on those who attend either one. Because as I already mentioned (I'm rambling at this point... ) we are all sinners no matter which Mass we attend. Sure, possibly the more prevalent sin at an EF is one of stubbornness and pride, but at the same time I think (based on observation alone) that a prevalent sin of attendees at an OF could be apathy and irreverence. I'm not a theologian so I don't know what the Church says about one of these sins being worse than the other, but in my eyes I don't think either Mass should be based on the holiness or attitude of those who attend it, because both would fail miserably in that respect.

Edited August 24, 2010 by goldenchild17

[Bennn]

I know there is an intrinsic value of every valid Mass. But I believe that personal holiness does affect the amount of graces flowing from the Divine Sacrifice.

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' timestamp='1282666827' post='2162472']
I don't know which Mass you went to as a traditionalist, but I was a "schismatic" for a few years too and don't agree with your conclusion at all.




The Church wants all of us to attend Mass. What does this have anything to do with the OF being better? They are both a valid Mass and going to either is better than not going at all. I don't think the Church has said anything more than this about the OF being preferable over the EF.



Irrelevant. The value of something (whether it be the EF, OF or anything on any subject whatsoever) is not inherently tied to the holiness of its proponents. We're all sinners, EF and OF attendees alike.



See above.




Again, irrelevant. the mind and heart of the EF attendee doesn't make or break the inherent value of the EF Mass. Besides while this may be true in many cases, its not by any means universal. I myself prefer the EF and believe its a "better" Mass (although both are valid and holy), but I attend the OF.

That said, I do believe the OF is a valid and acceptable choice, even for a traditionalist, as it is a good and holy Mass. But I don't see why or how a traditionalist would prefer it over the EF. And if there is a good reason to prefer either Mass over the other, then it should be based in the differences between the Masses themselves and not based on those who attend either one. Because as I already mentioned (I'm rambling at this point... ) we are all sinners no matter which Mass we attend. Sure, possibly the more prevalent sin at an EF is one of stubbornness and pride, but at the same time I think (based on observation alone) that a prevalent sin of attendees at an OF could be apathy and irreverence. I'm not a theologian so I don't know what the Church says about one of these sins being worse than the other, but in my eyes I don't think either Mass should be based on the holiness or attitude of those who attend it, because both would fail miserably in that respect.
[/quote]
Well said. A lot of Jack's arguments are somewhat ad hominem (based on the perceived attitudes of congregations, rather than the mass itself). There are sinners in any parish or congregation, and individual parishes vary in both forms. I can't judge everybody attending a mass, but overall, there tends to be much more reverence and a sense of the sacred at EF masses than at most (not all) NO masses.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Bennn' timestamp='1282668091' post='2162480']
I know there is an intrinsic value of every valid Mass. But I believe that personal holiness does affect the amount of graces flowing from the Divine Sacrifice.
[/quote]

I agree. But my point is that I don't necessarily see the members of the EF, or the OF as more holy than the other. Just different. There are good traits and bad traits of members of each just as there is in people of all walks of life. I don't think one group is more holy or unholy to a point where it skews the holiness of the Mass itself.

Edited August 24, 2010 by goldenchild17

[fides' Jack]

Maybe I should clarify - a lot of people seemed to think I meant that my reasons were based on other's attitudes and actions. That's really not true. My problem is that, as an EF radtrad, I found that, like the majority of them, I was very prideful about everything involving religion. It became a matter of me trying to humble myself and listen to the Church, rather than my own inclinations, about which Mass I should be attending.

As I said, the Church [i][b]encourages[/b][/i] it's faithful to attend their local parish. This ties in with the fact that the Ordinary Form is just that - the Ordinary Form. It's the official form of the Western Church - the form that is [i]favored[/i] by the Church.