FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
"I recently attended my first Latin Mass. It didn’t go well." - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: "I recently attended my first Latin Mass. It didn’t go well." (/showthread.php?tid=88117)

Pages: 1 2


"I recently attended my first Latin Mass. It didn’t go well." - Zedta - 11-24-2020

Very interesting video this:




RE: "I recently attended my first Latin Mass. It didn’t go well." - xsantiagox - 11-24-2020

I only had one TLM in my life, at a monastery during catholic scout camp.
it had a heavenly feeling really,off the earth


RE: "I recently attended my first Latin Mass. It didn’t go well." - Zedta - 11-24-2020

(11-24-2020, 07:15 PM)xsantiagox Wrote: it had a heavenly feeling really,off the earth
It is a wonderful thing. No?

That is what I experienced for the most of my childhood and into my adolescence, until, while in Catholic High School, the horror of Vat II literally tore away the altar and the language and the wonderment.

My Catholic Faith deteriorated rapidly afterwards, with the help of once loving Nuns who taught in the school and embraced the errors.

I hope we will one day get that "heavenly feeling" back...all the time.


RE: "I recently attended my first Latin Mass. It didn’t go well." - Eric F - 11-25-2020

Some people really got offended at a certain forum when I said that I know positively that I would never have returned to the Church back around 1997, if it hadn't been for the TML.


RE: "I recently attended my first Latin Mass. It didn’t go well." - Melkite - 11-25-2020

(11-25-2020, 11:33 AM)Eric F Wrote: Some people really got offended at a certain forum when I said that I know positively that I would never have returned to the Church back around 1997, if it hadn't been for the TML.

How anyone can be offended by that is beyond me.  And I'm not even a TLM attendee!  It would be incorrect to say that the TLM is objectively more beautiful than the NO, but anyone who would not agree with that sentiment clearly has no taste.


RE: "I recently attended my first Latin Mass. It didn’t go well." - NSMSSS - 11-25-2020

(11-25-2020, 12:25 PM)Melkite Wrote: It would be incorrect to say that the TLM is objectively more beautiful than the NO

Why would this be an incorrect statement?  The "objects", if you will, of the TLM versus the NO (more eloquent prayers, rubrics, etc.), by their very nature of being more ornate than the purposefully-simplified elements of the NO (by comparison) would lead me to believe one can correctly say the TLM is objectively more beautiful than the NO because it has more beautiful elements.

One would be wrong to say the NO is inferior insofar as the reality of the sacrifice is concerned (as if to say our Lord is less present or some such thing), but I would think one would be correct to say the TLM is a more superior sacrifice (as if to say it is offered in a better fashion).

Beauty, of course, is not subjective.  No postmodern art or brutalist architecture, for example, can ever truly be considered beautiful as it is devoid of the elements of beauty.  Some with weak constitutions may perceive such things are beautiful when they really mean they find them attractive (however that is possible), but they are incorrect to say such things are beautiful.


RE: "I recently attended my first Latin Mass. It didn’t go well." - Melkite - 11-25-2020

(11-25-2020, 04:33 PM)NSMSSS Wrote:
(11-25-2020, 12:25 PM)Melkite Wrote: It would be incorrect to say that the TLM is objectively more beautiful than the NO

Why would this be an incorrect statement?  The "objects", if you will, of the TLM versus the NO (more eloquent prayers, rubrics, etc.), by their very nature of being more ornate than the purposefully-simplified elements of the NO (by comparison) would lead me to believe one can correctly say the TLM is objectively more beautiful than the NO because it has more beautiful elements.

One would be wrong to say the NO is inferior insofar as the reality of the sacrifice is concerned (as if to say our Lord is less present or some such thing), but I would think one would be correct to say the TLM is a more superior sacrifice (as if to say it is offered in a better fashion).

Beauty, of course, is not subjective.  No postmodern art or brutalist architecture, for example, can ever truly be considered beautiful as it is devoid of the elements of beauty.  Some with weak constitutions may perceive such things are beautiful when they really mean they find them attractive (however that is possible), but they are incorrect to say such things are beautiful.

I agree that the one is superior to the other, but I completely disagree that beauty is not subjective.  As the old saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  It is, by its nature, a subjective quality.  What one finds beautiful, another does not.  There isn't anything that exists that is recognized as beautiful by all people.


RE: "I recently attended my first Latin Mass. It didn’t go well." - NSMSSS - 11-25-2020

(11-25-2020, 04:43 PM)Melkite Wrote: I completely disagree that beauty is not subjective.  As the old saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  It is, by its nature, a subjective quality.  What one finds beautiful, another does not.  There isn't anything that exists that is recognized as beautiful by all people.

I would say people have a tendency to use beauty where they ought to use attractive, and this creates the misnomer of the oft-mentioned saying above.

Take the human body for instance.  It is beautiful, objectively so.  It is beautiful because God created it in His own image, He being the most beautiful and perfect of all "being" that there is, so something created in His own image must be beautiful (to greatly simplify a large topic).

People may not recognize the beauty in every individual, a beauty that includes the physical but also the spiritual as well, but it does not change the fact that it is there, which is part of the dignity of each human person.  Really, there are no "ugly people", but there are people who do ugly things to themselves that distort their beauty (such a poor care for one's body).

Attractiveness is a different plane.  A redheaded woman has no more beauty than a blonde, but one may perceive a redhead as more attractive than a blonde, and you could draw similar comparisons between a multitude of traits, physical and non-physical.  The redhead may also not cut her hair, whereas the blonde has gone for a buzz-cut look.  The blond diminishes the presentation of her beauty by such a poor hairstyle choice, but again, she is no less beautiful.

So, all may not recognize the beauty of the Mass, but given that we are talking about the most ultimate of things as far as this world is concerned (the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary), with more inherently beautiful elements, it would stand to reason, I would say that the TLM is objectively more beautiful than the NO.


RE: "I recently attended my first Latin Mass. It didn’t go well." - Melkite - 11-25-2020

(11-25-2020, 05:02 PM)NSMSSS Wrote:
(11-25-2020, 04:43 PM)Melkite Wrote: I completely disagree that beauty is not subjective.  As the old saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  It is, by its nature, a subjective quality.  What one finds beautiful, another does not.  There isn't anything that exists that is recognized as beautiful by all people.

I would say people have a tendency to use beauty where they ought to use attractive, and this creates the misnomer of the oft-mentioned saying above.

Take the human body for instance.  It is beautiful, objectively so.  It is beautiful because God created it in His own image, He being the most beautiful and perfect of all "being" that there is, so something created in His own image must be beautiful (to greatly simplify a large topic).

People may not recognize the beauty in every individual, a beauty that includes the physical but also the spiritual as well, but it does not change the fact that it is there, which is part of the dignity of each human person.  Really, there are no "ugly people", but there are people who do ugly things to themselves that distort their beauty (such a poor care for one's body).

Attractiveness is a different plane.  A redheaded woman has no more beauty than a blonde, but one may perceive a redhead as more attractive than a blonde, and you could draw similar comparisons between a multitude of traits, physical and non-physical.  The redhead may also not cut her hair, whereas the blonde has gone for a buzz-cut look.  The blond diminishes the presentation of her beauty by such a poor hairstyle choice, but again, she is no less beautiful.

So, all may not recognize the beauty of the Mass, but given that we are talking about the most ultimate of things as far as this world is concerned (the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary), with more inherently beautiful elements, it would stand to reason, I would say that the TLM is objectively more beautiful than the NO.

What you are describing, I think of as dignity.  Perhaps this is what beauty once meant, but I don't know many people that would understand it in that context today.  I don't subscribe to the idea that language is unchanging, or ought to be unchanging.  Once a word has been accepted as having a new meaning, that's then the meaning of the word until it changes again.

I definitely agree that the TLM is objectively more dignified than the NO, though.


RE: "I recently attended my first Latin Mass. It didn’t go well." - Pandora - 11-25-2020

(11-25-2020, 06:09 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-25-2020, 05:02 PM)NSMSSS Wrote:
(11-25-2020, 04:43 PM)Melkite Wrote: I completely disagree that beauty is not subjective.  As the old saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  It is, by its nature, a subjective quality.  What one finds beautiful, another does not.  There isn't anything that exists that is recognized as beautiful by all people.

I would say people have a tendency to use beauty where they ought to use attractive, and this creates the misnomer of the oft-mentioned saying above.

Take the human body for instance.  It is beautiful, objectively so.  It is beautiful because God created it in His own image, He being the most beautiful and perfect of all "being" that there is, so something created in His own image must be beautiful (to greatly simplify a large topic).

People may not recognize the beauty in every individual, a beauty that includes the physical but also the spiritual as well, but it does not change the fact that it is there, which is part of the dignity of each human person.  Really, there are no "ugly people", but there are people who do ugly things to themselves that distort their beauty (such a poor care for one's body).

Attractiveness is a different plane.  A redheaded woman has no more beauty than a blonde, but one may perceive a redhead as more attractive than a blonde, and you could draw similar comparisons between a multitude of traits, physical and non-physical.  The redhead may also not cut her hair, whereas the blonde has gone for a buzz-cut look.  The blond diminishes the presentation of her beauty by such a poor hairstyle choice, but again, she is no less beautiful.

So, all may not recognize the beauty of the Mass, but given that we are talking about the most ultimate of things as far as this world is concerned (the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary), with more inherently beautiful elements, it would stand to reason, I would say that the TLM is objectively more beautiful than the NO.

What you are describing, I think of as dignity.  Perhaps this is what beauty once meant, but I don't know many people that would understand it in that context today.  I don't subscribe to the idea that language is unchanging, or ought to be unchanging.  Once a word has been accepted as having a new meaning, that's then the meaning of the word until it changes again.

I definitely agree that the TLM is objectively more dignified than the NO, though.

Sounds like Melkite likes Aristotle and NSMSSS likes Plato...