A new Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EvangeliumVitae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EvangeliumVitae

Guest
I am a very traditional Catholic. I love the Tridentine Mass. I think that the new Mass was perhaps changed too much. I believe that, since the Eucharist is the main focus, there should be an addition to when the Eucharist begins to be consecrated. Its needs to be made more solemn and pious so that the people can see that this is when Christ changes the bread and wine into His body and blood–this stems from me seeing people simply not caring or paying attention. They do not know what is going on!! (It also depeds on the priest).

I think that the priest, at this point, needs to come the front of the altar and pray FOR the people, as in the Latin Mass. There prayers need to be changed, there has to be singing–people need to the importance of what is happening and also share in its mystery. Does anyone else feel this way or share any of my thought?

I hope I’m not giving a bad impression:blush:
 
I think it depends on how the priest says Mass. I mean I have heard of people who have seen an ad orientem NO Mass and had like a meureka moment, and finally uinderstood the whole Real Presence idea. I have talked to countless Catholics who say that if it wasnt for the versus populum posture, they would never have guessed that it is REALY happening. So it just depends on how the priest says mass, and on his reverence and own love for the Sacrament. If the priest says the Mass like he believes, the people will catch on. If its important to father, it will be important to the flock
 
I have tried the Tridentine Mass many times and it just does not do it for me. There is no participation, I love to pray the Mass and our Priest thank God says Mass very reverently.
 
I would agree the priest certainly sets the tone of the consecration. It is also visible where people are in their faith journey.

I do think priests offering training outside of the mass for everyone is important so they understand. We must all remain alive in learning and living our faith.
 
hi all,

i’m stuck w/ NovusOrdo too

i think the important thing to remember when the shenanigans occur is that our Lord is watching YOU as if it’s just you, eh?
 
brianmichael said:
hi all,

i’m stuck w/ NovusOrdo too

i think the important thing to remember when the shenanigans occur is that our Lord is watching YOU as if it’s just you, eh?
Click to expand...
So . . . .having the privilege of attending the normative, Ordinary Form of the Eucharistic Celebration is being “stuck?”
 
malphono said:
IMHO, in the absence of the option to assist at the EF, the answer is a rousounding YES.
Click to expand...
Would you say the same if things were reversed or is it that you just don’t like the “new Mass?”
 
Timothysis said:
Would you say the same if things were reversed or is it that you just don’t like the “new Mass?”
Click to expand...
No, I would not say the same simply because the situation cannot be reversed. And no I do not like the NO. I can deal with the “reform of the reform” (IMHO the NO desperately needs it) but otherwise never did like it from day one, and never will. In any case, my comment was to the previous post: if there is no option, meaning either the NO or nothing, then the person is, in fact, “stuck” with it.
 
malphono said:
No, I would not say the same simply because the situation cannot be reversed. And no I do not like the NO. I can deal with the “reform of the reform” (IMHO the NO desperately needs it) but otherwise never did like it from day one, and never will. In any case, my comment was to the previous post: if there is no option, meaning either the NO or nothing, then the person is, in fact, “stuck” with it.
Click to expand...
So, though you deny it, if the situation were reversed (an EF available, not an OF) you would not consider a Catholic “stuck” by having no option other than the OF of the Mass. For your information, not all “good” Catholics prefer the EF over the OF. Though I would never say that I “do not like” the EF I would say that I prefer the OF for the same reason as a previous poster stated; I enjoy participating in the Mass.

And I thought it was the “Novus Ordo” Catholics who were intolerant…:rolleyes:

BTW, my Jesus is better than your Jesus.
 
Stormy_NY said:
I have tried the Tridentine Mass many times and it just does not do it for me. There is no participation, I love to pray the Mass and our Priest thank God says Mass very reverently.
Click to expand...
That is not true. At the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass we are called to participate by praying the Mass with the priest and associating in our heart the holy essence of the words. We participate in the Mass by following everything that happens at the Altar and focusing our hearts and prayers on the action taking place.
 
Timothysis said:
Though I would never say that I “do not like” the EF I would say that I prefer the OF for the same reason as a previous poster stated; **I enjoy participating in the Mass. **

And I thought it was the “Novus Ordo” Catholics who were intolerant…:rolleyes:

BTW, my Jesus is better than your Jesus.
Click to expand...
There is participation in the TLM. Mass isn’t about hearing our own voices; it is about the Holy Sacrifice. In the words of Father Myers, a Diocesan priest from Pittsburgh; “Mass is not the work of the congregation, a performance which we manufacture in order to make God happy with us. Rather, the Mass is the work of God - it is Christ’s Own work of redemption carried out in our midst on our altar.” To participate is to pray with the priest the prayers of the Mass, to unite in your heart the holy meaning of those words, and to follow what is happening on the Altar with your eyes, heart, and mouth.
 
franklinf said:
That is not true. At the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass we are called to participate by praying the Mass with the priest and associating in our heart the holy essence of the words. We participate in the Mass by following everything that happens at the Altar and focusing our hearts and prayers on the action taking place.
Click to expand...
I think what is meant is “active participation.” This is very different from sitting there with a missal hoping that you’re on the same page as the priest. More than once I’ve heard of people reading along when all of the sudden the Eucharistic bells begin to ring…and their several pages off!

I have nothing against the Traditional Roman Rite of the Mass but I do have a problem with those who dismiss or are downright hostile to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. We’re all on the same team, right?
 
franklinf, thank you for your wonderful posts about participation at the EF or TLM. The interior participation, if that is the right term, of which you speak is much forgotten today.
 
Timothysis said:
I think what is meant is “active participation.” This is very different from sitting there with a missal hoping that you’re on the same page as the priest. More than once I’ve heard of people reading along when all of the sudden the Eucharistic bells begin to ring…and their several pages off!

I have nothing against the Traditional Roman Rite of the Mass but I do have a problem with those who dismiss or are downright hostile to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. We’re all on the same team, right?
Click to expand...
But that is active participation! As Cardinal Ratzinger said, “… the way [active participation] has been applied following the Council has exhibited a fatal narrowing of perspective. The impression arose that there was only ‘active participation’ when there was discernible external activity - speaking, singing, preaching, reading, shaking hands. It was forgotten that the Council also included silence under actuosa participatio, for silence facilitates a really deep, personal participation, allowing us to listen inwardly to the Lord’s word. Many liturgies now lack all trace of this silence.”

It is the interior participation that is key. Cardinal Ratzinger has also said the participation of the laity is founded on “inner processes. It is these which give rise to the whole drama of the liturgy…The real action takes place in the deep places of men’s hearts, which are lifted up to the heights.”
 
preV2tradcath said:
franklinf, thank you for your wonderful posts about participation at the EF or TLM. The interior participation, if that is the right term, of which you speak is much forgotten today.
Click to expand...
Thank you. That’s what I was referring to, the interior participation which is actual and active participation in the Mass.
 
franklinf said:
But that is active participation! As Cardinal Ratzinger said, “… the way [active participation] has been applied following the Council has exhibited a fatal narrowing of perspective. The impression arose that there was only ‘active participation’ when there was discernible external activity - speaking, singing, preaching, reading, shaking hands. It was forgotten that the Council also included silence under actuosa participatio, for silence facilitates a really deep, personal participation, allowing us to listen inwardly to the Lord’s word. Many liturgies now lack all trace of this silence.”

It is the interior participation that is key. Cardinal Ratzinger has also said the participation of the laity is founded on “inner processes. It is these which give rise to the whole drama of the liturgy…The real action takes place in the deep places of men’s hearts, which are lifted up to the heights.”
Click to expand...
Yes, and Pope Pius XII was in favor of Mass in the vernacular in order to do away with the private devotions that people were practicing during Mass…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top