When Will This Division End?!!!

[PaxCordisJesu]

Okay guys, I'm here to rant..  I really need to get this out of my system, so forgive me if this post is long and/or unintelligible! 

Just today I overheard someone saying some very nasty things about someone else, for no other reason than that they like the TLM. And I was like "what the heck is wrong with you?" I've seen so much if this, I am sick and tired of people hating on each other because they attend a different liturgy!!! Who cares! We're all Catholic and share the same beliefs, right? What does it matter if someone has different preferences? Both the OF and EF Forms of the Roman Rite are valid,good, and beautiful. In essence, they are the exact same thing: the Sacrifice on Calvary!! Why do people fight over these two liturgies? No one hates the Byzantines because they have a different liturgy. It's not just NO goers hating the TLM, I've seen it go both ways and to extremes... though I do believe the Latin Massers are generally a lot more charitable in the way they treat others. I've never felt judged when, at a TLM, I haven't worn a veil, or I have shown up in pantaloons. Yet I've heard very close friends openly make fun of the way traddie girls usually dress (long skirts, no makeup, veils). And it hurts, it really does!! How is it that so many Catholics have allowed us to become divided like this, and over such trivial matters? I can't stand it, I have seen so much hating in my life. It's bullying, and it's wrong! Is this ever going to end? In the early Church, Christians were known as "the sweet ones" because they're love for one another was so evident. Why can't we go back to that? 

Okay, when I get the chance later I'm going to come back and post more on this subject. For now I have to go.

[Credo in Deum]

Valid? Yes. Good? What do you mean by good? Beautiful? No. 

I wouldn't say the matters are trivial.  Our outward expressions of the spiritual realities of our Faith matters a lot more than you think, especially to those visiting a Mass.  

Let's take an example: Our belief that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

Imagine you're not Catholic but you heard Catholics believe this and you go and visit a Latin Rite Mass. 

OF: People standing single file usually being handed a host, sometimes receiving on the tongue, but not just by the priest but also by laity. 

EF: People kneeling at the altar rail, hands tucked under a cloth, with a server holding a golden paten under the priests hand as he places the host on the tongue of each person receiving. 

Which one best expresses the reality of the Eucharist? 

Now I know some will say "but the OF can have that kind of reception too!" and I would say, yes, and yet they don't.  Why not?  Could it be the Liturgy maybe? 

At the EF it is their standard.  Why is that? Could it be the Litugry maybe? 

 

[PaxCordisJesu]

22 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Valid? Yes. Good? What do you mean by good? Beautiful? No. 

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The NO Mass is good in its essence (it is the Sacrifice of Calvary renewed- sorry if that's not the correct word) and in its purpose (adoration, thanksgiving, reparation, and petition). Is that not enough for you? If you look at the rubrics and prayers of the NO, how can you deny the beauty of it? Yes, it can and is abused and the music is generally terrible, but that doesn't detract from the beauty of the Mass itself. While I think patens, incense, altar rails etc. are beautiful, that's not true for other cultures and is becoming less and less so in our own. Don't try to force your definition of beauty on others. If you like the TLM, fine. So do I. Did you know the Byzantines always receive Communion while standing? And they also stand during the consecration? Does this make their liturgy any less beautiful or meaningful? Plus, in the early Church (at the last supper too) communion was received in the hand! There are many different types of beauty! 

37 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

I wouldn't say the matters are trivial.  Our outward expressions of the spiritual realities of our Faith matters a lot more than you think, especially to those visiting a Mass.  

I didn't mean literally trivial. My point was that the particular liturgy you go to isn't the most important thing. Charity is, and that was Christ's prayer for us, "that they may be one."

Anyway, I did NOT start this thread because I wanted people to fight over the "superiority" of their favorite liturgy. Please do not continue to do so. I was simply upset (and still am) over the way Catholics attack each other over things like liturgy, modesty, etc. 

@Credo in Deum, if my previous post comes across as uncharitable or just downright rude, I apologize. I've never been good at communicating through writing, I need to use my voice to give it the right inflection and meaning. So if this sounds bad, I'm sorry! 

[SicutColumba]

2 hours ago, PaxCordisJesu said:

Don't try to force your definition of beauty on others.

In essence the OF is a forced definition of beauty. It’s a deliberate attempt to reengineer the Mass. It’s a completely inorganic reversal and an erasure of nearly two thousand years of natural evolution of the liturgy. Sure, it’s valid, but there’s not much else to be said about it. 

 

2 hours ago, PaxCordisJesu said:

Did you know the Byzantines always receive Communion while standing? And they also stand during the consecration? Does this make their liturgy any less beautiful or meaningful? Plus, in the early Church (at the last supper too) communion was received in the hand!

Sure, certain things are done in the Eastern Catholic Churches that are different from what we do in the West yet are what tradition has dictated for their liturgies, but why does the Roman Catholic Church has to change its own liturgy to look more like the others? Why is it always we who have to get rid of our traditions? Just because it’s done elsewhere doesn’t mean that we too have to do it. They have their traditions, we have ours, and there’s no reason we should give ours up (inorganically) for dubious reasons and then claim it’s fine because it’s a tradition in other churches. 
 

The thing about communion in the hand is that, sure, it was practiced in the early Church, but communion on the tongue was developed over time and then later adopted by the Church as a whole not only as a means to show respect but also as a prudent response to abuses that were taking place. It’s the Church’s mature, well-formed answer to problems that She saw happening. Communion on the tongue was instituted out of prudence and the greatest respect for the Eucharist. The Church « grew up » in a sense and saw it was no longer feasible nor respectful nor desirable to take communion in the hand, and this is due to Her wisdom and the experience gained over the first few centuries of Church history. 

To clarify, though, I think your initial point of wanting to get rid of division in the Church is correct. But at the same time the playing field is not entirely level. We were wronged at Vatican II, deprived of our Mass, and I think many trads, especially the older ones, have a sense of a great injustice being inflicted upon them. It’s not an excuse not to be charitable, but the whole affair is much, much more complicated than two camps who prefer two different masses for aesthetic reasons. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by SicutColumba

[Credo in Deum]

10 hours ago, PaxCordisJesu said:

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The NO Mass is good in its essence (it is the Sacrifice of Calvary renewed- sorry if that's not the correct word) and in its purpose (adoration, thanksgiving, reparation, and petition). Is that not enough for you? If you look at the rubrics and prayers of the NO, how can you deny the beauty of it? Yes, it can and is abused and the music is generally terrible, but that doesn't detract from the beauty of the Mass itself. While I think patens, incense, altar rails etc. are beautiful, that's not true for other cultures and is becoming less and less so in our own. Don't try to force your definition of beauty on others. If you like the TLM, fine. So do I. Did you know the Byzantines always receive Communion while standing? And they also stand during the consecration? Does this make their liturgy any less beautiful or meaningful? Plus, in the early Church (at the last supper too) communion was received in the hand! There are many different types of beauty! 

I didn't mean literally trivial. My point was that the particular liturgy you go to isn't the most important thing. Charity is, and that was Christ's prayer for us, "that they may be one."

Anyway, I did NOT start this thread because I wanted people to fight over the "superiority" of their favorite liturgy. Please do not continue to do so. I was simply upset (and still am) over the way Catholics attack each other over things like liturgy, modesty, etc. 

@Credo in Deum, if my previous post comes across as uncharitable or just downright rude, I apologize. I've never been good at communicating through writing, I need to use my voice to give it the right inflection and meaning. So if this sounds bad, I'm sorry! 

"Isn't that enough for me?"

"Don't force what I believe to be beautiful on to others"

"other cultures and now our own don't find certain elements beautiful" etc etc.

The Mass is enough for me; It was enough for me before Vatican II. Apparently it wasn't enough for others.  I also don't force my belief of what I find beautiful onto others, rather I adhere to what the Church believes is beautiful.  Have you actually read what the Church desired for the OF to retain vs what they would permit it to do? I'll say this so you can understand it, I go to the EF because it is still the Liturgy which best adheres to what the Church finds beautiful vs OF which is a liturgy commonly done to the standards of what the Church permits.  The difference is huge.  The Church permits you to only fast during Lent, Fridays, and other times.  The Church wants you to fast more as an act of penance.  The Church permits you to only be obligated to go to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation.  The Church wants you to go to Mass daily!  Make sense? When Catholics finally get their head out of their bums and return to a spirit of desiring in conformity with what Holy Mother Church wants in accordance with Her traditions, then there will be unity.

As for the different cultures around the world etc etc the idea that the times should dictate the Liturgy is an incredibly scary statement.  As for the differences between one Rite vs another Rite that isn't even a valid argument within the context of this discussion which is about the Latin Rite.  Last time I was Ara Byzantine Divine Liturgy I didn't fully stand...there was a slight bend in the knee that is take, a clothes placed under my chin, and the communion served to me on the tongue.  Those rubrics absolutely scream that something sacred is being given to me.  

I want to say more but I'm just going to leave it to others for now. 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Credo in Deum

[dUSt]

Every person must recognize humanity in others, with humility--then it will end.

[Peace]

17 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Valid? Yes. Good? What do you mean by good? Beautiful? No.

If you can't see the beauty in the Mass, that is more likely to be a problem with you, than the Mass. Prayer and penance my friend. Prayer and penance.

[Peace]

@SicutColumba Everything you wrote is hopelessly subjective and subject to debate. Trads take the view that the TLM developed "organically" and stuck with tradition while the NO developed "inorganically" and was a clear break with tradition, but that is simply trad-opinion and cannot be demonstrated objectively. That debate has been had on Phatmass a thousand times before and the trads on this site have still yet to demonstrate it. You should be able to search through the site and find all of those threads. I recall that myself and @Nihil Obstat were involved in a few of them.

Quote

Sure, certain things are done in the Eastern Catholic Churches that are different from what we do in the West yet are what tradition has dictated for their liturgies, but why does the Roman Catholic Church has to change its own liturgy to look more like the others?

It’s the Church’s mature, well-formed answer to problems that She saw happening.

Quote

Communion on the tongue was instituted out of prudence and the greatest respect for the Eucharist.

No, forcing communion on the tongue was a forced definition of beauty. It was a deliberate attempt to reengineer the Mass. It was a completely inorganic reversal. Why did the Church have to get rid of her traditions and force communion on the tongue for dubious reasons?

Those are basically your own words. 

Now that's not really my opinion, I love the TLM and the NO, but the point is you can make arguments like that about almost anything under the sun and you will never be able to prove that you are correct. It's just your opinion.

But if you like the TLM, I hope that you have opportunities to attend, like I do. You do you.

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Peace

[Nihil Obstat]

Good bait.

[ReasonableFaith]

16 hours ago, SicutColumba said:

Sure, certain things are done in the Eastern Catholic Churches that are different from what we do in the West yet are what tradition has dictated for their liturgies, but why does the Roman Catholic Church has to change its own liturgy to look more like the others? Why is it always we who have to get rid of our traditions?

In light of the centuries long strong arm efforts to latinize eastern Catholic sui juris churches, eastern rites, extra liturgical practices, and clerical discipline this view seems quite myopic.
 

Some concessions were made in an attempt to prove eastern Catholics are ‘real’ Catholics and some were forced despite occasional papal disapproval of such actions. 
 

Thankfully many of these adaptations  have been reversed or removed since Vatican II. However, some remnants are stubborn, particularly in regard to clerical discipline. 

[dUSt]

I remember when I was really into debating TLM vs NO. Now I'm just really into trying to be a better Catholic.

[Peace]

24 minutes ago, dUSt said:

I remember when I was really into debating TLM vs NO. Now I'm just really into trying to be a better Catholic.

The two aren't really all that different IMO, unless one is super-hung up on aesthetics. Most of the major parts are present in both forms of the Mass, but people are tripping out because the priest faces this way as opposed to that way, or because people are receiving communion in this posture as opposed to that posture.

[Guest]

Both forms enshrine the most incredible mind boggling wonder ever in the whole universe and therefore deserve utmost respect.  I have also attended a Mass celebrated by an Anglican Ordinariate Priest and it was beautiful.

Anglican Ordinariate

 

[dUSt]

7 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Both forms enshrine the most incredible mind boggling wonder ever in the whole universe and therefore deserve utmost respect.  I have also attended a Mass celebrated by an Anglican Ordinariate Priest and it was beautiful.

Anglican Ordinariate

 

Me too! It's actually the closest mass to my home and I'll often attend their Sunday evening mass if I miss the early masses at my regular parish. Beautiful.

[PaxCordisJesu]

I love the Mass of the Personal Ordinariate! It has some really lovely prayers that I've never heard at any other liturgy, like The Comfortable Words, The Collect for Purity, The Summary of the Law, the Penitential Rite, etc.

Edited May 20, 2021 by PaxCordisJesu