Why Do I Sense A Strange Debate Over The Mass?

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1332548949' post='2406699']
What should we do about this? Is there rally anything we can do?
[/quote]

Yeah....duck!

[qfnol31]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1332614157' post='2407139']
I am neither anti-Latin or anti-Ordinary Form, but rather [b]"Pro-Proper-Celebrate."[/b]

My preference is for a Mass celebrated correctly whether it be OF or EF.

It is unfortunate people get lost in this viscous fight of OF vs. EF when there are remarkable differences between a properly celebrated Novus Ordo, and a improperly celebrated N.O. with the same situation for EF.
[/quote]You would have loved my wedding.

Edited March 25, 2012 by qfnol31

[Clareni]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1332560568' post='2406896']
I go to Mass to witness Christ's Sacrifice, and that Sacrifice is the same no matter what Mass I go to.
Therefore, I have no preference.[/quote]

This is absolutely correct and it shouldn't make any difference to me, but it does. If the essence of both the OF and EF are the same, the ways of expressing common reality that can be radically different. I doubt very much if there are that many clown masses anymore, but I have been profoundly disappointed, and disillusioned, by the whole culture and the aesthetic product of liturgical reform as instituted in the US. Is there a direct relationship between that phenomenon and the collapse of a great deal of the infrastructure of the US Catholic church? There is no doubt that since the reforms started there has been a shattering of the self confidnece of North American Catholics that they were a part of "one church."

There is now a charismatic church, a casual Novus Order church, a Novus Ordo church which returning to more traditional elements, and a traditional church doggedly adhering to the discipline and liturgical culture before Vatican 2. In each of these a priests presides over the offering of the body of Christ and that should be enough but it isn't. Weak vessel that I am, the profoundly moving and world class aesthetics of traditional Catholic music, art, and architecture help me to understand, perceive, and feel the power of the divine.
As a student and teacher of history I know how the very best of all the elements of Catholic worship and popular devotion have have been the products of millenia of faith. As participant in the mass at all the local parishes I have visited, I see virtually nothing of this culture remaining and this profoundly depresses me.

The Novus Ordo is not heretical or the product of some Vatican insider conspiracy. The Novus Ordo culture of Africa and Asia is vibrant, healthy and growing. The ordinary form of the mass does not have to presented in a banal, overly casual, and aesthetically challenged manner that severely undermines the overwhelming reality of the physical presence of God among us. The OF can be presented in a way which is deeply reverent, spiritually focused, and emotionally moving. The problem is that in my experience that type of service is much rarer than a sung high mass of the Extraordinary Form.

I love Catholicism and I have been struggling for years to return to holy mother church. It may never be one church again but I have no doubt that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I also have no doubt that the religious culture that flows from the usual expression of the OF is not sustainable, because it simply does not inspire the level of devotion and discipline needed to maintain a sacramental church. I say that with sadness and not to disparage the faith and practice of anyone here.

[Annie12]

[quote name='Clareni' timestamp='1332648599' post='2407679']
This is absolutely correct and it shouldn't make any difference to me, but it does. If the essence of both the OF and EF are the same, the ways of expressing common reality that can be radically different. I doubt very much if there are that many clown masses anymore, but I have been profoundly disappointed, and disillusioned, by the whole culture and the aesthetic product of liturgical reform as instituted in the US. Is there a direct relationship between that phenomenon and the collapse of a great deal of the infrastructure of the US Catholic church? There is no doubt that since the reforms started there has been a shattering of the self confidnece of North American Catholics that they were a part of "one church."

There is now a charismatic church, a casual Novus Order church, a Novus Ordo church which returning to more traditional elements, and a traditional church doggedly adhering to the discipline and liturgical culture before Vatican 2. In each of these a priests presides over the offering of the body of Christ and that should be enough but it isn't. Weak vessel that I am, the profoundly moving and world class aesthetics of traditional Catholic music, art, and architecture help me to understand, perceive, and feel the power of the divine.
As a student and teacher of history I know how the very best of all the elements of Catholic worship and popular devotion have have been the products of millenia of faith. As participant in the mass at all the local parishes I have visited, I see virtually nothing of this culture remaining and this profoundly depresses me.

The Novus Ordo is not heretical or the product of some Vatican insider conspiracy. The Novus Ordo culture of Africa and Asia is vibrant, healthy and growing. The ordinary form of the mass does not have to presented in a banal, overly casual, and aesthetically challenged manner that severely undermines the overwhelming reality of the physical presence of God among us. The OF can be presented in a way which is deeply reverent, spiritually focused, and emotionally moving. The problem is that in my experience that type of service is much rarer than a sung high mass of the Extraordinary Form.

I love Catholicism and I have been struggling for years to return to holy mother church. It may never be one church again but I have no doubt that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I also have no doubt that the religious culture that flows from the usual expression of the OF is not sustainable, because it simply does not inspire the level of devotion and discipline needed to maintain a sacramental church. I say that with sadness and not to disparage the faith and practice of anyone here.
[/quote]
Don't you think though, that the multiple form of the mass might be God's way of appealing to everyone in order that all may find their home in the fullness of truth found in the church? A protestant seeking the truth might be turned off by the Latin because it may seem foreign from what he knows, while a cradle catholic may like the ordinary form because it suits him.Personally, I don't think the multiple Masses are a bad thing at all and they definitely don't mean the church is divided! I think it is God's way of attracting as many people to the true Church as possible. People are different and come from different backgrounds and so I think God definitely takes that into consideration!

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Clareni' timestamp='1332648599' post='2407679']
...The ordinary form of the mass does not have to presented in a banal, overly casual, and aesthetically challenged manner that severely undermines the overwhelming reality of the physical presence of God among us.[/quote]

And it's NOT supposed to be. When it is presented in a banal, overly casual manner, we witness a Mass that is NOT being celebrated in it's proper form.


[quote]The OF can be presented in a way which is deeply reverent, spiritually focused, and emotionally moving. The problem is that in my experience that type of service is much rarer than a sung high mass of the Extraordinary Form.[/quote]

This is what I understand what the OF is supposed to be like. However for cultural reasons, we have lost it in many places. It exists nonetheless, and I believe the Church is working us slowly to it.

[quote]I love Catholicism and I have been struggling for years to return to holy mother church. It may never be one church again but I have no doubt that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I also have no doubt that the religious culture that flows from the [b]usual expression of the OF is not sustainable,[/b] because it simply [b]does not inspire the level of devotion and discipline needed to maintain a sacramental church.[/b] I say that with sadness and not to disparage the faith and practice of anyone here.
[/quote]


It seems to me that the OF is not properly said in many places as you said. There is a far distance between the OF done on EWTN, and the OF at the average local parish level. This level of difference was not intended but has occurred for various cultural reasons and not theological ones. Thus, I believe through a period of time of prayer and good catechesis, one day, the OF Mass will be much closer to being the "same" everywhere.

With the New Translation, we are in the beginning of a much bigger reform in mind. I believe one day the Church will get back to one form. However this will take time. Or at the very least, all forms will be widely properly celebrated.


[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1332618427' post='2407152']
Even a properly celebrated OF is materially different than the EF. The prayers of the OF and the prayers of the EF are distinctly different. There are several EF prayers that were suppressed in the OF such as the prayer to the holy trinity and the prayers at the foot of the altar. That is why there is still a fight between OF vs. EF.
[/quote]

I do not doubt the distinct differences between the two. However, it has been my experience that most of the battles over the two forms are not over the correct form of either, but rather the abused form. So most people who bash the OF, are really bashing the abuses that are rampant today (armies of Extraordinary Ministers along with the EM "blessing", tabernacle placement, general lack of reverence during Mass, poorly decorated churches(meeting rooms would be a more proper name), campfire songs, heretical songs, homily style, applause for human accomplishments during Mass, anything invented on the spot really).

Also, it seems most who bash the EF, are bashing what they perceive to be a blind congregation that doesn't understand what is going on. Many people who "hate" the EF seem to be people who misunderstand what the Mass is supposed to be and are instead caught up with the cultural kum-by-ah movement.

This is my opinion and [b]experience [/b]of the division.

Both forms are quite able to reach an appropriate reverent tone that helps bring us to the Mystery of the Sacrifice. However due to various reasons, we are living in a time period where we have strayed off the reverence trail with particular emphasis on one form.

Please pray for our priests, that they may faithfully celebrate the Mass in accordance with the intentions of the Church. Pray for the congregations as well, that we may seek to attend and participate in the Mass with a proper spiritual sense.

[Clareni]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1332650312' post='2407723']
Don't you think though, that the multiple form of the mass might be God's way of appealing to everyone in order that all may find their home in the fullness of truth found in the church? ....Personally, I don't think the multiple Masses are a bad thing at all and they definitely don't mean the church is divided! I think it is God's way of attracting as many people to the true Church as possible. People are different and come from different backgrounds and so I think God definitely takes that into consideration![/quote]

This is definitely true as far as the church internationally. Th Novus Ordo not only allowed the vernacular but was flexible enough that the churches in Africa and Asia were able to become more deeply connected to their own cultures and be seen as something more than just a form of Europeanization. This has lead to a a healthy flourishing church across Africa and in places like Korea and the Philippines.

The problem is not one of multiple masses because the church has always had different expressions of the mass such as the Byzantine and Maronite liturgies. The problem is where multiplicity breeds contradictory cultures which are diametrically opposed to each other. One of the Catholic periodicals did a story on this tension in Chicago by visiting a traditional parish with the pre-Vatican 2 service and "gym mass" held every Sunday at one of the suburban parishes. The gym mass owed its location to a desire to be as informal and non-traditonal as possible and so they moved this popular service out of the sanctuary entirely. The author could live with the gym mass as compatible with the reform spirit of Vatican II but felt the simultaneous existence of the Tridentine parish in the diocese was insane and expressed a kind of spiritual schizophrenia.


Comparing the positions, practices, and beliefs of groups such as A Call To Action and Una Voce and this cultural divide does, indeed, look crazy.

[Slappo]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1332652142' post='2407745']
I do not doubt the distinct differences between the two. However, it has been my experience that most of the battles over the two forms are not over the correct form of either, but rather the abused form. So most people who bash the OF, are really bashing the abuses that are rampant today (armies of Extraordinary Ministers along with the EM "blessing", tabernacle placement, general lack of reverence during Mass, poorly decorated churches(meeting rooms would be a more proper name), campfire songs, heretical songs, homily style, applause for human accomplishments during Mass, anything invented on the spot really).

Also, it seems most who bash the EF, are bashing what they perceive to be a blind congregation that doesn't understand what is going on. Many people who "hate" the EF seem to be people who misunderstand what the Mass is supposed to be and are instead caught up with the cultural kum-by-ah movement.

This is my opinion and [b]experience [/b]of the division.
[/quote]

I agree. Most of the battles you see today about OF vs EF are about "abusive OF puppet mass vs what I perceive to be some amesome reverent mass with smells and bells." None of the valid debates include that argument.

The valid debates and discussions are about the material liturgical differences, which is unfortunately not the discussion we usually see.

[Archaeology cat]

I would love for all OF Masses to be celebrated like the solemn Mass at the Metrpolitan Cathedral of Christ the King in Liverpool. Yes, even though the architecture leaves some scratching their heads, the liturgy there is beautiful. There's Gregorin chant, and Latin propers. One could argue there are too many EMHCs, but the liturgy at that Mass is beautiful. I o know tht not all parishes can have a schola, but all can have a reverent Mass. After all, the only EF Mass I've attended was a low Mass, and the lack of music didn't make it less reverent.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1332611287' post='2407118']
My professor was originally talking about the Crusades. People might argue over stupid things in politics, but they kill each other over the things that really matter.
[/quote]
That's a very idealistic view on war, in my opinion. This might be why people support wars, but if you think for a moment idealism is at all relevant on the battlefield you're wrong.

[elizabeth09]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1332550801' post='2406716']
We can disagree and still be civil to one another. Suffering for the sake of the Traditional Latin Mass is laudable, but all of us are still called to respect and charity.
[/quote]

Right. Just remember that we also have our opinion.

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1332554987' post='2406792']
Oh dear, this could turn ugly...I hope it doesn't though. As someone who usually attends the Novus Ordo, but also as a person who has attended a Traditional Latin Mass...I loved both. The Mass is the Mass, whether I can understand the words or not. The Consecration is the Consecration; the Eucharist is there as the source and summit of our faith in both forms.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who are willing to travel out of their way to go to the Traditional Latin Mass. I wouldn't do it every week, but if it helps someone with their relationship with the Lord, who would I be to judge them?
[/quote]

I do enjoy both the Traditional Latin Mass and the other mass.

Side note: I saw that their were two other women have head covering on few weeks ago.

Edited March 25, 2012 by elizabeth09

[Clareni]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1332656802' post='2407766']
Most of the battles you see today about OF vs EF are about "abusive OF puppet mass vs what I perceive to be some amesome reverent mass with smells and bells." [/quote]

Yikes! I didn't know about the puppet mass!

Here it is though, as performed at the national conference of Call To Action in 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU

To be fair to CTA, I think they are right that this is the road that the church started on with the initiation of radical liturgical reform in the 60's and their members now represent the spirit of the original Call To Action conference in 1968. Their criticism is that the church did not renovate enough and stopped short of the next logical step which would have been a fully democratic structure of empowered lay people sharing power with a democratic clergy inclusive of married/women/gay individuals. In such a church this type of liturgical expression makes perfect sense and would be expressive of the religious values of such a body. They further argue that such a church would not be suffering current crises in vocations.

Are they right? Is the current problem in the church that it stopped short of real renewal? Perhaps the answer is to look at a church with a well defined priesthood and see how it fared when holy orders were made completely inclusive. Did the opening up of the priesthood to everyone help transform that church and make it a dynamic, growing community? Is the Episcopal church growing or shrinking and is it a more untied and confident body now or is it terribly divided and conflicted?

I think the members of the CTA are serious and deeply committed to their vision of Catholicism but I don't how how their vision of reform has really lead to, or can lead to, renewal.

[r2Dtoo]

Wow...even I thought was completely, and totally, gay.

[penguin31]

That may well be one of the single most sad, and single most trippy, things I've ever seen.

Edited March 25, 2012 by penguin31

[homeschoolmom]

That stupid video gets posted in EVERY SINGLE thread on the OF and EF masses as though it were representative of a "typical" NO mass.

[Clareni]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1332716810' post='2408308']
That stupid video gets posted in EVERY SINGLE thread on the OF and EF masses as though it were representative of a "typical" NO mass. [/quote]

It is not representative of the Ordinary Form at all. It was not celebrated at a church but rather at a conference of a group that feels itself at odds with the church hierarchy and frustrated that liturgical reform has not continued along the same path that in begun in the 1960's. The video is not stupid in that it represents the beliefs and practices of a segment of the American church and should be considered as such. I did not post it to beat up on people who attend the OF and none of my comments are in that vain. I do have trouble with the Ordinary Form and I am struggling to understand its role in the precipitous decline of certain core areas of the church in America.