I think it is more those people that debate over where Communion on the hand is licit.
And don’t start me on ‘veils’ AKA headcoverings.
Seriously, if Pavlov were alive today he would have so many different triggers to work with.
Although I don’t know, it’s really kind of sad.
I’m as guilty of too much talking as the next person (or more so) but wouldn’t it be wonderful if on those topics and so many of the hot button ones we’d hear dialogue like this:
“I really love being able to understand my own language at the OF.” (OF lover).
“Wow, that’s great that you feel so satisfied and joyful!” (EF lover).
“I really love the contemplation and the mystery of the EF” (EF lover).
“Wow, that’s great that you feel so satisfied and joyful!” (OF lover).
“I feel communion in the hand is more personal and I feel closer to God” (CITH lover).
“Wow, that’s great for you to feel God’s closeness” (COTT lover).
“I feel communion on the tongue is most respectful and I feel closer to God” (COTT lover).
“Wow, that’s great for you to feel God’s closeness!” (CITH lover.
“I wear a veil because I feel called to show a visible sign as a child and a daughter of Christ’s kingship in my life” (Headcovering lover).
“Wow, that’s great for you to feel the wonder of Christ’s kingship.” ("bareheaded’ lover).
“I choose to stand bareheaded because I feel this is perfectly proper and acceptable as a child of God and a sister of Christ.”(“Bareheaded” lover).
“Wow, that’s great for you to feel the wonder of Christ’s kinship.” (Headcovering lover).
And then no other qualifying remarks whatsoever.
No, "it’s great for you but it would be better if. . . blah blah blah, all aimed at, "it would be better if you did what I prefer, what I think is right.
As one of my favorite musical characters says, “Wouldn’t it be loverly”.
I’m glad the early church didn’t think this kind of dialogue would be great.
I probably didn’t make myself clear, but I don’t know where you got the ‘early church’ remark from.
What I’m talking about is when it comes to preferences (and all of my examples were preferences, two perfectly valid choices each), instead of constantly trying to get the other person to go for ‘your’ choice, state that you are glad that the other person is doing the preference and receives grace from it.
Mind you, anybody who has slogged through. . I mean read, any of my previous and pret-near daily posts on the subjects KNOWS my preferences, all of which “align” with “the early Church” but for example, with regard to headcoverings, as long as the Church has determined ‘not necessary for women right now AD 2020’ I am not going to scream and holler, “Cover your heads women” because that makes them dig their heels in harder, whereas a soft answer turneth away wrath. It is going to take decades for the OK Boomer crowd (I’m one) and the Millennials indoctrinated get over the instinctive shudder at ‘male domination’; but if the women wearing coverings are not argumentative but merely reflect and comment on the grace they feel, it’s going to take away a lot of the arguing ‘sting’.
We don’t live in the times of the early Church. Remember how St. Paul said he would be ‘all things to all people’ in order to save some of them? Ponder on that, my friend. Ponder on that.
I think sometimes when we think we are debating the small stuff we need to remember that King Solomon said in Song of Solomon that it is the little foxes (the small stuff) that spoil the vine.
This is just one example:
Yesterday at my Novus Ordo parish there were two little girls about age 9 -10 at the altar serving and a mom doing the reading, all the while at least 5 young men from one family age 13 - 19 sat in the pews. These young men come from a good Catholic family which in other ways are involved in the Church but I am sure these young men had no intention of being at the altar with little girls. I don’t blame these young men at all. It is what is happening in the Church that is keeping them in the pews rather than at the altar. I see so few altar boys, when I do I usually rejoice.
Smelling the coffee…
Any young man who doesn’t want to serve at the altar because of girls serving does not deserve the honor of being an altar server.
All young men should be given the opportunity to serve at the altar. It is just in the nature of most all young teen males to not want to do something little girls are doing. If little girls are up there and no one is asking young men to be there instead, we have a problem.
Preferences are fine.
My issue is using “NO” to speak of the Ordinary Form.
It is most often a subtle attack on the Mass. There is also the idea that there is a complete lack of reverence at the OF that is perpetuated by some.
I have never been to a parish that did not invite all young people, boys and girls, to serve at the altar.
Any boy who choses not to because girls are also serving is going to have a really hard time living in the 21st century.
A more charitable view might be that they just have no interest in serving at the altar. We are a traditional parish with all boy altar servers, yet there are significantly more boys in the pews than at the altar. Not every boy is interested in or well-suited to altar serving.
Well, you have heard of one now and mine is not the only one. There is nothing in the bulletin inviting them. The schedule is made out by the women in the office and 90% of the time it is little girls.
Not sure. I think there are many who are smelling the coffee, as the article says, and hopefully going back to encouraging men to be men.
If one expects young teenage males to participate in something publicly they see little girls doing, one does not understand young teenage males.
that is not our place to say
I completely agree it is not the girls at the altar that should be blamed.
Possible, yes. It could be they are not interested. You are fortunate to have some altar boys in your parish. Hopefully some might consider the priesthood.
We have 5 seminarians and several more discerning. They were/are all altar servers.
Doubtful. Pope Pius XII said that he would not call a Council because he feared that too many modernists were in the Church and would hijack a Council.
It is very doubtful that a conservative Pope would call a Council anytime soon for the same reason. Most likely, this will not happen in our lifetimes.
I don’t really know anyone like that other than Sedes and SOME SSPX.
Outside of some popular bloggers, you will be hard pressed to see that with FSSP or any Extraordinary Form parish full union with the Church.
Most TLM attendees in parishes in full communion with the Church simply want to be able to continue to attend the Latin mass and don’t want to be characterized by the Sedes.
Plus, they would simply like to see the OF more reverent (esp in the parishes were they saw true abuse).
Not my experience at all.
At our diocesean EF, the smugness and superiority of many of the attendees has been very off-putting.
So much so that many priests will no longer say the EF for this particular group.
Is that honestly everyone, or a few people? Also, is it safe to assume you are referring to the TLM offered by diocesan priests?
SOMETIMES diocesan TLMs can be a failure (or not ideal) when performed by diocesan priests.
if it’s not a TLM only parish, conflict can grow between the two different communities. This sometimes happens with growing foreign language masses vs English mass too. It usually revolves around devotions, Confession, Daily Mass, Holy Week, etc.
This 2nd class status can make the TLM community (or any foreign language mass community) feel left out. Also, not all pastors are adept at running multiple communities with in their parish, and HONESTLY, this is the reason why the Church has personal parishes anyway - to avoid multiple communities in one parish.
The best solution is for dioceses to create a Personal Parish(es) dedicated to the Latin Mass (or as we see in some dioceses - Personal Parishes that are dedicated to two or more communities). Even if it’s a quasi-parish renting time at existing Church from a territorial parish when they are not using the Church for liturgy.
Now, that’s not to say Territorial Parishes can’t successfully offer the Latin Mass. They can, but if the priest isn’t 100% in love with it, or isn’t good at shepherding them, it can be painful.
Now, I will admit (because I’ve heard a FSSP priest say this to lay people) that Traditional Catholics often have an issue with pride. So it does take a priest who understands the community to properly lead them.
However, with all this said I don’t know many he are pushing for the removal of the OF. Most are just asking to receive all 7 sacraments in the Extraordinary Form.
Yes, this is a common problem with a parish near me that offers both the Spanish and English Mass. Both sides contribute to certain issues and it takes both sides to resolve certain issues.
Actually at our Novus Ordo parish, there is conflict between different groups and it has nothing to do with language or OF or EF. Sadly it happens and both sides are usually partly at fault.
Many traditional Catholics have had to and continue to work hard to follow the traditions of the Church. Many times we do feel second class, which can make people feel defensive. Not good but it happens.
So, I still think it takes both sides to work together for healing.
This is exactly what we have.
We have also had the EF since the early 1990’s. Our former Bishop granted a indult long before Benedict XVI opened the EF for more use.
The attendance is not growing at all, and actually diminishing because of the attitudes of some.
Luckily for our Anglican Ordinariate parish, they are growing by leaps and bounds with all those who are tired of the drama at the EF parish.
Well… sometimes a few rotten apples spoils the bunch.
Is it the Personal Parish dedicated to just the Latin Mass? Or a Personal Parish dedication to two or more communities?
Just curious, are the priests diocesan, FSSP, ICRSS, or some other group?