Inferior Rite?

[cmotherofpirl]

nor did they celebrate the Trid...

[BLAZEr]

You are not suggesting that they offered the Tridentine mass??

[Mary's Knight, La]

dabuk...,

it seems to me like you're asking which rite comes closer to the worship and adoration God deserves the answer is neither for 2 reasons

1. all rites are infinitely far from God because they all fall short of the true 24/7 worship and beauty He deserves

2. each rite is perfect because they offer the Perfect Sacrifice to God

you see we cannot give God the worship and sacrifice He deserves excepting that He gives it to us to give back which happens for every rite. so every rite is perfect and therefore infinitely beautiful

now i can debate philosophy/theology in circles with you if you really want and i'm really good at it as debating in circles happens to be one of my favorite pass-times. but maybe you get the idea of what we're trying to say.

further who are we to judge objective beauty we only know the objectively beautiful basically cuz God tells us what it is. so we can only receive the knowledge not posess it necessarily that's God's job not ours. ask Him which He thinks is more beautiful but see my reason #2 first

Edited January 9, 2004 by Mary's Knight, La

[ransom]

Christ's peace to all,

I used to assist at the Tridentine Rite mass exclusively for the first few years that I had come back to the Church. I love the ceremony, the Latin, the chant, the insense, and everything else that goes along with the "Old Mass". The priest was a member of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. After a few years my family and I started going to a "New Mass" parish with a very traditional priest. The mass is as beautiful as the Latin mass. I noticed that there are alot of prejudices going both ways "Liturgical Snobery" if you will. The "New Massers" thought it was useless to attend mass that you didn't understand. To that I say, you will understand more than you think you will. The homily is always in the vernacular (local language) and if you follow along in a Latin/English missal you will come to love the beauty of the old prayers and recognize their english counterparts in the "New Mass". The "Traditionalists" were always speaking of the abuses that occur in the "New Mass". To that I say, the priest is following in most cases the guidelines set by the local Bishop. If you notice blatant or not-so blatant abuses it is your duty to report it to the Bishop or higher if necessary.

The only reason I don't assist at the Latin mass now is because here they don't participate in the Catholic community as part of the body of Christ. They also don't adhere to the same litugical year as the rest of the diocese, therefore it is hard to consider them as part of the Universal Church when they are so blatantly marching out of step. Instead of trying to bring the beauty of a "Traditonal" mass to the rest of the diocese they segregate themselves.

I will always love the Latin mass but I also love the new mass. For my family to fully experience Christian community we will continue at our "Novus Ordo" parish and visit the Latin mass on certain feast days and high Holy days. There is, in my opinion, no such thing as an inferior rite. If someone wants to continue in this train of thought they should examine their motives.

Division is not reflective of Christ's unity.

all love, peace and unity,

ransom

[ransom]

Christ's peace to all,

I used to assist at the Tridentine Rite mass exclusively for the first few years that I had come back to the Church. I love the ceremony, the Latin, the chant, the insense, and everything else that goes along with the "Old Mass". The priest was a member of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. After a few years my family and I started going to a "New Mass" parish with a very traditional priest. The mass is as beautiful as the Latin mass. I noticed that there are alot of prejudices going both ways "Liturgical Snobery" if you will. The "New Massers" thought it was useless to attend mass that you didn't understand. To that I say, you will understand more than you think you will. The homily is always in the vernacular (local language) and if you follow along in a Latin/English missal you will come to love the beauty of the old prayers and recognize their english counterparts in the "New Mass". The "Traditionalists" were always speaking of the abuses that occur in the "New Mass". To that I say, the priest is following in most cases the guidelines set by the local Bishop. If you notice blatant or not-so blatant abuses it is your duty to report it to the Bishop or higher if necessary.

The only reason I don't assist at the Latin mass now is because here they don't participate in the Catholic community as part of the body of Christ. They also don't adhere to the same litugical year as the rest of the diocese, therefore it is hard to consider them as part of the Universal Church when they are so blatantly marching out of step. Instead of trying to bring the beauty of a "Traditonal" mass to the rest of the diocese they segregate themselves.

I will always love the Latin mass but I also love the new mass. For my family to fully experience Christian community we will continue at our "Novus Ordo" parish and visit the Latin mass on certain feast days and high Holy days. There is, in my opinion, no such thing as an inferior rite. If someone wants to continue in this train of thought they should examine their motives.

Division is not reflective of Christ's unity.

all love, peace and unity,

ransom

[photosynthesis]

I've never been to a Tridentine Mass so I can't really make that judgment. plus, the Eucharist is always beautiful.

[dabukthumpa]

The only reason I don't assist at the Latin mass now is because here they don't participate in the Catholic community as part of the body of Christ. They also don't adhere to the same litugical year as the rest of the diocese, therefore it is hard to consider them as part of the Universal Church when they are so blatantly marching out of step. Instead of trying to bring the beauty of a "Traditonal" mass to the rest of the diocese they segregate themselves.

They don't participate in the Catholic Community as part of the Body of Christ? Come on - on what foundation can you make that statement? (1) there is no higher way or more complete way to participate as a community as part of the Body of Christ other than through the Mass. (2) Will you now turn your statement to those many Eastern Catholics who through there own different communities, and let me remind you Liturgical Calanders - that they do not participate in the one Body of Christ!?!

In no way is it hard to Consider them part of the Universal Church - Actually it is easy to see How they Help make it more beautiful - and build it up. The Church is a wealth of tradition - the Liturgy being one of them.

[dabukthumpa]

Lend your thoughts and votes.

peace

[dabukthumpa]

Also, let me add one more thing to "ransom" ransom stated:

"They also don't adhere to the same liturgical year as the rest of the diocese, therefore it is hard to consider them as part of the Universal Church when they are so blatenly marching out of step"

First - it has been declared by Pope John Paul II - in "Ecclesia Dei" that these Latin Mass Communities may follow the norms of the Church by the use of the 1962 Roman Missle. Obviously, the liturgical calander is different - but these communities have been given permission from the man on top. They are far from marching BLATENLY out of step with the True Church of Jesus Christ.

Lastly - The poll is on whether or not you think one form of the Roman Rite is objectively more beautiful than the other. There is no attempt to try to imply that one Mass is more effecitve in terms of grace recieved, or that one Mass is not valid - as both are. Please keep comments on why or why not - you think one form is objectively more beautiful. It is also not a poll on whether or not you like or dislike different Church communities. Thanks for the input - and please give an honest vote - as I am trying to gather information for a study I am doing.

Peace and God bless to all.

[dabukthumpa]

dabuk...,

it seems to me like you're asking which rite comes closer to the worship and adoration God deserves the answer is neither for 2 reasons

1. all rites are infinitely far from God because they all fall short of the true 24/7 worship and beauty He deserves

2. each rite is perfect because they offer the Perfect Sacrifice to God

you see we cannot give God the worship and sacrifice He deserves excepting that He gives it to us to give back which happens for every rite. so every rite is perfect and therefore infinitely beautiful

now i can debate philosophy/theology in circles with you if you really want and i'm really good at it as debating in circles happens to be one of my favorite pass-times. but maybe you get the idea of what we're trying to say.

further who are we to judge objective beauty we only know the objectively beautiful basically cuz God tells us what it is. so we can only receive the knowledge not posess it necessarily that's God's job not ours. ask Him which He thinks is more beautiful but see my reason #2 first

(1) NO - I am not asking which rite comes closer to worship or adoration God deserves. I am simply asking for your imput as to whether you think one form of the Roman Rite is objectively more beautiful than the other.

(2) Mass is being offerend almost continuelly at every moment around the world - and if not mass then the fruits of it are being adored (that is 24 seven perpetual adoration of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament in Church and Religious Orders) And - Catechism tells us the Mass is a fortaste of Heaven - The eastern Church has a theology that describes the Mass as the point of time where Man is lifted right up into heaven to give True worship to God through Jesus Christ. Scott Hahn wrote a whole book on the Mass and Heaven dealing with the Book of the Apocalypse. I would argue your point about the Mass being infinatly far from God.

(3) Yes, each rite is perfect because it offers the perfect sacrifice to God - But I am not asking that - I am asking whether or not the one Rite itself is objectively more beautiful than the other. Both can offer the same perfect sacrifice - But the manner in which it is done can be aesthetically differnt. Aesthetics always deal with beauty (philosopy 101 here) Some things are objectively more beautiful than others - which would mean also aestheticlly more pleasing. True beauty raises wonder and awe within a person toward God (Which is why Catholic Church has always surronded the mass with things that are beautiful - language, music, architecture, art ect. - although that has dwindled considerably nowadays) Cardinal Arinze was recently quoted as saying - "a gym converted into a Church is still just that - a Gym." You see a properly built Church is objectivly more beautiful than a converted Gym.

(4)

further who are we to judge objective beauty we only know the objectively beautiful basically cuz God tells us what it is. so we can only receive the knowledge not posess it necessarily that's God's job not ours. ask Him which He thinks is more beautiful but see my reason #2 first

We are completely entitled by God to judge objective beauty. God tells us Who he His not What he is (The dark Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas here). Therefore (according to St. Paul - Book of Romans - and the First Vatican Council - Followed by the Second Vatican Council) we can come to the Certainty that God exists through creation and the use of Reason - We can on our own ability, judge "objective beauty" and come to the realization of the Trancendent on our own. Obviously we need Divine Revelation to give us the way in which we are to correctly believe, and to worship, but non the less we can know that Truth, Beauty and Goodness is there - I.E. God Himself. I also believe God sees some things as objectively more beautiful than others otherwise He would have not made things that way. God made the Blessed Mother Objectivly more beautiful than my own Mother for instance. A deep black Sky with all the stars in there shimmer and glow is objectivly more beautiful than a Clowdy, gray sky - at night that seems to cast a suffocating feeling upon the earth. Lastly - we can posses knowledge - it is one of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. We are made in the image and likeness of God - He would not deny us the use of obtaining knowledge. In essence you last statement about your reason #2 really has nothing to do with it - since I agree with your statement #2 - and also stated that it has noting to do with the poll question. But I had to answer you - since you spurrned my interest. Sorry about getting away from the poll again - I can see how this website can soon take over.

Anyway - vote and keep comments to the best on your thoughts about the question. Peace

[dabukthumpa]

please vote if you haven't.

Thanks

[Seven77]

The Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy is objectively beautiful--always beautiful because it is the same Sacrifice of Calvary made present in a unbloody manner, Heaven meets earth and we recieve the same Jesus---Our Lord and God into our bodies.

Everything else is beautiful in a much as they help us to realize that.

[dabukthumpa]

Thanks for the input Seven77.

[dabukthumpa]

Everything else is beautiful in a much as they help us to realize that.

What do you mean by this statement???

[p0lar_bear]

A deep black Sky with all the stars in there shimmer and glow is objectivly more beautiful than a Clowdy, gray sky

This may be a complete aside, but I disagree with you on this. I do not believe a clear sky is objectively more beautiful than a cloudy one. I grew up in the plains states. I remember the whole family going outside to watch the storm clouds roll in. We would just sit there and watch the clouds for hours. It was beautiful. Also, for areas where droughts are common, clouds would likely be seen as very beautiful, if for no other reason than that they bring rain. Rather than being suffocating, a cloudy sky can be a comforting blanket.

To use an example from Tolkien, there was a "argument" between Gimli and Eomer as to whether Galadriel was the most beautiful lady ever. Gimli said she was and threatened Eomer on the matter. When Eomer finally met Galadriel, he agreed that she was very beautiful, but that Lady Arwen was more so. Gimli's response was kind of "he prefers the evening and I the morning."

On the same lines, is St. Francis' Portuncula chapel (sp?), which he built and used with his followers more or less beautiful than Maria De Los Angelos which now houses it. The chapel is beautiful in its simplicity, in its...earthiness. The basilica is beautiful in its grandeur and its loftiness. I may say that I prefer the simplicity of the chapel, but I could not say that one is more beautiful than the other.

Yes beauty is objective, but only to a point. Sometimes things are equally beautiful in very different ways.