How A Radtrad Can Prefer The Ordinary Form

[fides' Jack]

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:

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.

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.

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.

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).

[Brother Adam]

[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:

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.

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.

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.

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]

You have made a good observation to the attitude of many Catholics who show interest in the differences between the two forms of the rite, however I must disagree with your assertion that attending the OF is always better because it is the current norm for the Latin Rite. The Church itself recognizes the deficiencies in the ICEL English translation and has moved to correct them. Pope Benedict XVI also recognizes the superiority of form, sign, and mystery, as to many of his bishops, of the EF of the rite. His book "Spirit of the Liturgy" details this. Pope Benedict XVI in his wisdom as our Holy Father has also opened up the EF to wider use because he wants to free Catholics to use it on a regular basis.

Also, not all Catholics who prefer the EF are prideful. I recently attended a meeting for those interested in a EF diocesan parish with the bishops representative. Only 2 or 3 of those in attendance were of the more radical variety noting how it was their dream no one would wear jeans in this "new" parish. Everyone else had more humble and christocentric reasons for being there, wishing that the parish would be a light to the world and source of salvation for the community.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1282594024' post='2162128']
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 does not favor one Form over the other.

[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]

This is not a strong reason but a presumptuous one.

If there is a debate between an EFer and an OFer, and the EFer knows he is right - which you assume will lead to pride - then you should not ignore or forget about the pride that could well in the heart of the OFer, who out of stubbornness refuses to acknowledge his wrongness or who out of stubbornness is absolutely convinced that he cannot possibly be wrong.

Moreover, the attitudes of the people who attend either Form should not be a reason why you would prefer one Form over the other, unless you had some consistently negative experience at all EF parishes/Masses or all OF parishes/Masses. Of course, we do not go to Mass to socialize. Nor do we go to Mass to judge others (which includes scrutinizing a "boring" homily). We go to Mass to partake in the Blessed Sacrament, and to be a witness to the faith amongst a community of believers.

[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]

You seem a bit too focused on the personalities or habits of the people. (Not to mention, we are [u]all[/u] fallen and prone to sin.) I am a bit concerned that you prefer one Form to the other based on the people.

[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]

I am also concerned by your generalizations.

[Lilllabettt]

I prefer the Extraordinary Form, but rarely go.

The pride thing .. I can see that, sure. But for me its because I am deathly sick of Church politics.

Unfortunately, in some places, attending the EF is seen as a "political" statement, and the congregation has many very active, very politically aware members who are well informed and ready to get out there and fight for their point of view.

Whereas in an orthodox OF parish, its much more likely that people don't think about these things, they are there for the gospel, thats it.

Of course, you have to watch out for the "liberal" "progressive" type of OF parish, which will be equally as politically intense as the EF one ... but these are fewer and fewer, in my experience.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Lilllabettt

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1282594024' post='2162128']
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]

False.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Resurrexi

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Resurrexi' timestamp='1282599532' post='2162177']
False.
[/quote]

Thanks, Rexi. Care to elaborate?

I don't mean to ignore anyone else. I'm at work and will get to the arguments when I have a few minutes.

[Resurrexi]

Even if it were true that canon law encouraged people to attend their geographical parishes, it would be irrelevant. Canon law is a rule book, not a divinely inspired text. There are plenty of canons that, at least in the opinions of many canon lawyers, should be changed or amended. It is not a perfect text, and by no means does the fact that something is "encouraged" by canon law make it automatically better.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1282600094' post='2162181']
Thanks, Rexi. Care to elaborate?
[/quote]

If one reads the relevant [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1U.HTM"]ecclesiastical law[/url], he will not find anything encouraging Catholic to attend their geographical parish. The closest thing one finds to that is the following:

"As a general rule a parish is to be territorial, that is, one which includes all the Christian faithful of a certain territory. When it is expedient, however, personal parishes are to be established determined by reason of the rite, language, or nationality of the Christian faithful of some territory, or even for some other reason." (CIC, can. 518)

This does not in any way state that one should be discouraged from attending a personal parish, or that one should feel more obedient to the Church because he attends his geographical parish. Rather, it merely establishes a legal norm for how parishes are to be erected.

In a like manner, canonically speaking, a diocese under canon law is a geographical unit. That does not, however, mean that those who become the subjects of the the non-geographical equivalents of dioceses (e.g. the Anglican ordinates discussed in [i]Anglicanorum Coetibus[/i]) are any less faithful to the Church. If a person feels that he would best serve Christ by being a member of an Anglican ordinate and attending the rite of the Mass used therein, then he should become a subject of that ordinate rather than of his local diocese. The same, I would say, is true for those who desire to become members of traditionalist personal parishes. If a person feels he would best honor Christ by attending the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively or near-exclusively, then he should attend that Mass and join that parish.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1282594024' post='2162128']
As a former schismatic
[/quote]

If I recall correctly, you said that you were raised in a [url="http://www.fssp.org/en/index.htm"]Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter[/url] parish. The FSSP are in no way, shape, or form schismatic.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

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.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Bennn]

I asked a canonist, and he said that a catholic is not bound to attend Mass at his own parish. He can choose to go to Mass wherever he wants, as long as it is catholic.

-Edited because the content will probably get modified by a mod anyway if I would leave it in this post.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Bennn

[Veridicus]

[OnlySunshine]

Posted in the wrong topic! Sorry!

Edited August 23, 2010 by MaterMisericordiae

[Tridenteen]

JMJ
Just want to say: I don't attend my geographical parisah, due to heretical sermons and protestant music. I attend a FSSP community one hour away from me.

[fides' Jack]

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!

[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?