Hard Core Traditionalist Webpages

[Annie12]

I don't want to turn this into another debate about the Latin Mass vs. the Novus Ordo. But, I was looking at this website (http://fatima.ageofmary.com/apostasy/new-mass/62-reasons/) and it seems to me to be a bit heretical. However, I don't want to be too sweeping in my claim. I do agree when it mentions that there is an element of Protestantism that has crept into the church. But, I don't think by any means that this should all together mean that the Novus Ordo mass should be done away with like this website says it should. I am struggling with how to decipher webpages like this. Are they valid or should they be rejected as heresy? ( It is even black and white like that?) :think2:

[beatitude]

That site explicitly tells people that they shouldn't go to a Novus Ordo Mass because the consecration may be invalid. The arguments are placed under the heading 'Apostasy'.

 

Rather than worrying about the technical language to describe the site creator's beliefs, I think you should just ask how such a site could possibly be helpful to you. Why waste time on these sites when there is already so much good stuff to read that's 100% faithful to the Magisterium?

[Apteka]

The thing about Catholicism's current liturgical situation is that it's a catch 22. The modern liturgists say the Tridentine Liturgy was an aberration full of man made innovations that had to be removed, whereas the traditionalists say the modern liturgy is a deviation and requires restoration. Either way you look at the integrity of the Catholic church is hampered and it's no longer the monolithic institution it was once romanticized to be.

[Basilisa Marie]

It's explictly heretical.  The title says "62 Reasons Why We Cannot Attend the New Mass."  They're saying the Novus Ordo is invalid.   It's one thing if they had written a list of reasons why the Extraordinary Form is awesome.  But they didn't.  

 

As a general rule, I don't think it's prudent to bother with questionable websites like that.  It gets very hard, very quickly, to discern what's true and what's not.  Sometimes it's easy, you could just avoid certain sections of a website, or only look at certain articles by a certain author, etc. But especially with something like Fatima, which is already something prone to lots of not-completely-orthodox ideas within the movement, it's not good to bother with website that aren't completely legit on topics that are black and white.  It's like the poop in the cookie metaphor - would you eat a chocolate chip cookie that had a little tiny bit of poop in it? Couldn't you just eat around it? No, of course not.  While it's technically true that the other parts of the cookie might be just fine, and are safe to eat, you'd much rather have a cookie without any poop in it. 

[Apteka]

"And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell."

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm a convert and when I first converted, I struggled a lot with these topics. I'll just share what eventually made sense to me. :)

 

I prefer to attend the Latin Mass and that's my spirituality. I think the Novus Ordo is valid and the Eucharist is there too. I think there are a couple possible reasons why some people don't believe it's valid:

 

- the Mass is a sacrifice, and the Traditional Latin Mass makes this very very clear, but the Novus Ordo doesn't go into as much detail. So it's more up to the priest to have the right intention. I think what makes some people worried is that if there's some crisis of faith and there are many really liberal priests, that would affect the Consecration. That was also a concern at the beginning, as there was more liberalism a few decades ago. It also depends on the seminaries etc. So some people got worried about that. It seems like now, I hope anyway - most priests especially new ones, have orthodox beliefs on the Mass and what it is and what the Eucharist is, so I tend to just leave it to God and I assume it's valid unless there's some obvious reason. For example, if I went to a parish where the priest talked about Communion as a symbol, or if the Mass broke tons of rubrics, then I'd be worried, otherwise I just assume it's okay, cause I can't know the priest's mind and I don't want to judge something that only God might know. But I remember reading how there was this concern about the Novus Ordo. Because in the Traditional Latin Mass, there are so many details about it being a sacrifice, that just by saying the prayers, the priest would be reminded of the reality and he would intend to do what the Church does, unless he's seriously doubting. With the Novus Ordo though, it's more up to the priest, though I think most priests today do intend the right thing. (I say "most" just because I can't know about "all").

 

- another reason some people doubt the validity is because in the ordination, the meaning of the priesthood is again not made as clear as in the Traditional Latin Mass ordination. So it's again up to the Bishop to have the right intention. Apparently, the Anglicans lost their holy orders because they no longer intended to do what the Church does, and one of the ways they changed their theology was not believing in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Those who support the validity of the ordinations in the NO, often say that we can see the theology still expressed in the rite, just not as straightforwardly as before, so the Bishop needs to intend the right thing.

 

That's just what I heard before.

 

Personally... I prefer the Traditional Latin Mass, while I do believe that NO is valid. I find that the Traditional Latin Mass helps my spirituality in a special way, though Jesus is also present in the NO... the Traditional Latin Mass just helps me to focus on Him. In addition, it's great for catechesis. Let's say a Catholic doesn't know very much about their faith. If they go to Traditional Latin Mass, they'd understand very quickly that this is something very holy, very reverent, they might get more of a sense of being at Calvary and that it's a Sacrifice. If they attend the NO, they can still open up to God and pray, of course, they can still understand it's holy, because the Mass is holy. However, their level of understanding this might depend on how the Mass is celebrated. If it's done reverently, that would help them. If it's more casual... because of some details, they might be distracted from this. For example, if the music is really really casual, that reduces the sense of the sacred, if things are done very casually... some people are distracted by many EMHCs, and even what they or lectors are wearing, etc. It's still a Mass. But I think people who prefer the Traditional Latin Mass, do so because it's consistently done in a reverent way, whereas with the NO, there are parishes that do it reverently and others that are more casual. I've been to the NO with the Sisters of Life that was very reverent. Or the Mass on EWTN. But it depends on the parish. With the Traditional Latin Mass, it's more uniform and even if the priest were to pray very quickly, etc, there's still a sense of a more 'vertical' relationship rather than 'horizontal', focused mostly on the community - as can be found with the more liberal NO parishes.

 

I understand that people might disagree with my post, but that's just some thoughts I had.

Edited August 9, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Apotheoun]

The thing about Catholicism's current liturgical situation is that it's a catch 22. The modern liturgists say the Tridentine Liturgy was an aberration full of man made innovations that had to be removed, whereas the traditionalists say the modern liturgy is a deviation and requires restoration. Either way you look at the integrity of the Catholic church is hampered and it's no longer the monolithic institution it was once romanticized to be.

My Eastern Orthodox friends are critical of both forms of the Roman Rite, but they really think that the newer Mass is a bigger problem, because to them it looks more like a Protestant service, or worse a form of entertainment.