Try the conventual Mass of a religious community such as the Benedictines or Dominicans, to name a couple. Then you will experience an OF Mass that is reverent and faithful to the rubrics.
Right. However, it does not mean that a given X which correlates has ‘no’ effect.
There were many factors that contributed to a breakdown in society across the boards which became most noted in the 1960s and continues today.
In fact, it might be good to start with the so-called ‘little things’ as opposed to trying to tackle the ‘big issues’. So a ‘little issue’ like a minor practice of headcovering for women, of deep genuflections and a greater awareness of having your ‘outside’ look more respectful to reflect your INSIDE respect for men, women, and children might be a good way to start generating back some sense of reverence for God without trying to ‘yank people to the 1950s’ or institute repressive laws (snort) which are apparently feared, or ‘losing gains’ or whatever. What harm does it do to try something so ‘minor’?
As things stand, we need to make some change, inward or outward, as the ‘laissez-faire’ approach, or even more "welcoming gestures’ and ‘meeting people where they are’ is not working. We need to do something different because what we’ve been doing so far hasn’t exactly been succeeding for the last 50 years plus.
I’m sorry if I’m reiterating a question, but what is the definition of “reverent” here? As in, why do you mean when you say “more reverent” or “very reverent”? And how is that the (or these specific) Vernacular Masses do not show reverence, but the (or these specific) Latin Masses do? What is meant by “irreverent celebration”?
Good questions. It seems those who are saying that to mean in a subjective way - more of how they feel tiwards certain ways about the mass that they like.
Reverence, first of all is in the heart. Even if we say mass in the desert with the barely minimum, it still can be reverent because it is still a valid mass, and that matters.
Some people do not say it properly and due to their enthusiasm about the form of mass that they prefer, can sound ‘holier than thou’ and may project such attitude, which the grace of the mass does not give. It gives holiness, and it is expressed in charity and love.
Or they could have had a supply of veils – much like synagogues have supplies of kippahs for men to wear.
I think by and large that veils and mantillas are crowns of sorts for some. I distinctly remember going to Mass where my wife was wearing a very legitimate hat for church. The usher tried to get her to remove it and replace it with a paper towel (not sure if that’s an upgrade or not from a napkin?) He didn’t seem too concerned about compliance with the old C of C. He seemed more intent on making sure what all females had a veil, mantilla or paper towel on their heads.
If that were not so funny, it would be too sad. I actually had to laugh out loud. Thanks for starting my morning with a little merriment.
Say it again and say it louder!
I like to think of the difference between the EF and OF like Mac (or Linux) vs Windows. If your average Joe goes out with the intention to buy a new computer, they’ll almost certainly get one with Windows, not because they prefer it over the alternatives, but because they don’t really know alternatives exist. If someone goes out and buys a Mac, they’re making a conscious choice to buy a Mac because they prefer it over Windows.
Most people attend the OF without realizing there are alternatives. Unless you’ve grown up in a traditionalist family, you’re making a conscious decision to attend the EF.
How do you know this? It sounds like an excuse to me. I would attend the EF Mass more if the people were not so incredibly severe in how they treat others. And no, their behavior is not a product of great piety. It’s a reactionary response that gets mighty offensive, mighty quickly.
If you are being deterred from the Traditional Mass for the reasons you list above, perhaps you should consider this: The severity demonstrated by some who attend the Traditional Mass, while regrettable, does not reflect on the rite itself. Avoid the people who you find to be judgmental and seek out those who are friendly. Not all trads are of the sort you described.
First, it’s not a separate “rite.” It’s a separate form.
The problem with avoiding people at the local EF Mass who act ridiculously severe is that it’s most of the 70 or so that attend. They have driven everyone else out. It’s a terrible shame – the Mass should be attracting 300+. Instead it draws maybe 70 because of the behavior of those who do attend. Sad to witness.
Gosh…this has not been my experience at all. The ICKSP parish I attend does have around 300 (give or take on any given Sunday or HDO) at the Solemn High Mass. There is a reverential silence before and after Mass, but that was the same at the conservative OF parish I started out in. Perhaps you belong to a parish like the one I took my mother to in Florida? I was there for 5 months last year taking care of her and she would only go to the nearest parish. It was really, really noisy before and after Mass. Socializing seemed to be very important to this group…even during Mass. Maybe because there were so many Eucharist ministers and they were all so friendly and knew everyone?..because it was noisy while waiting to receive Communion too. But the Church was packed out to the max.
Same here. The EF I attend has one or two people who are judgmental but the majority of folks will give you the shirt off their back. Around 20 years ago, unfortunately, there were quite a few families who skirted the line between Catholics and sedevacantist. But that has drastically changed. Lumping everyone into the same bowl does not get you far. Saying most EF goers are judgmental jerks is like saying most OF goers are Protestants who like the ceremony. Both are patently false.
The EF gets a bad rap because of a few loud folks who everyone associates with the majority.
The local EF Mass is FULL of severe, judgemental people. So is a local Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy that is full of “traditional Catholics.”
Well, you might have one of those parishes. But the EF Masses and the one Melkite parish I have attended were not like that.
That is sad, and I wouldn’t blame you for not attending. I am thankful that I have met many wonderful people at my closest Traditional Mass.
Well, the sentiment of “never wearing that again” is exactly the sentiment my mother had. Exactly.
It is you, @stpurl, who chose the terms “traumatised” and “hostile”
I can’t speak for the person to whom you were writing…but I can speak for myself who lived through that era – that we have very happily moved beyond – thankfully.
My late mother was neither “traumatised” by what she wore in the era before the end of the 1960s nor was she “hostile” on account of it. But she saw it for exactly what it was…a mere societal convention. Needless and ridiculous in a new era.
She had worn pant-like outfits since the war, because of the work she did. She liked them. They suited her quite well. As time passed between 1940 and 1970, she was able to wear them more and more in a variety of settings and occasions. The fashions changed. The last place she wore a dress and hat was in church – and once the convention was done away with there, those outfits went to charity.
And she was glad to be liberated from prescriptions that imposed the need to wear a dress or a hat or gloves or carry a handbag in order to be a properly ensembled lady simply on account of societal convention.
It was a societal convention that held on in the Church longer than it did in the rest of society. And she would have said exactly “I will never wear again those dated outfits of the past.”
Just as women today do not wear Victorian mourning attire or hang the crepe – thanks be to God – nor do American women wear hoop skirts, like it was the 19th century.
We were all glad to be liberated of that silliness and to have the flexibilities of the new era.
My father and I similarly cast aside the hats that “gentlemen” were expected to wear, simply because that was what one was to do. They were a nuisance, actually. I still wear a hat, mind you…when it is cold, in the depth of winter, and I want to keep my head warm and I determine I need it – not because it is “supposed to be worn” to betoken my class or societal status.
And I would say the same thing about the attire and conventions of days past: “never again”.
I have been encountering these sort since shortly after Marcel Lefebvre was forced out of the post of Superior General of his Congregation.
Across a long time and across many iterations of them, their reputation surrounds them. They did not need help from anyone else in acquiring that reputation…they did quite a job of it on their own, that’s for sure.
There is nothing wrong in praying with your head uncovered.
But this very usage makes absolutely no sense to someone who lived through that era.
Veiling? Using the word “veil” as a verb?
My mother and my grandmother would look upon that usage as beyond bizarre. They would utterly reject it. It’s purely the fantasy of this era. Yes, my mother and my grandmother along with the other women covered their heads because that was what was done…but they attached no more of a profound spiritual meaning to it whatsoever than my father did in putting a tie around his neck. They certainly would not describe as being “veiled.” That is an Islamic practice.
The phrase “to take the veil” meant that a woman was choosing to enter Religious life. They wore veils…those who had them, that is. Already before the Council, we had women Religious who did not wear habits, due to the political situation.
This is like the fantasies that people have today that we all turned to face East to pray before the Council. We simply faced the apse. The parish church of my youth…built long before the Council…was on a North-South axis. We faced South. None of the parishes contiguous to mine were oriented toward the East. Not even the cathedral faced East in its pre-conciliar configuration. The altar simply faced the apse. There was no “mystical East” or “liturgical East”…we faced the direction we faced.