S
Are the arguments for superiority of the TLM based on the dreaded emotionalism of the charismatics?
- Status
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I have been reading the words of Cardinal Ottaviani at fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html. He has some good and worthwhile points.
I also have to say that he presents some really very short-sighted, uninsightful, and simply erroneous arguments that really shocked me. From all I had read regarding him, I perceived him as a very erudite and respectable cardinal. He no doubt was, but there are some points in his argument that make me wonder if he didn’t either fail to understand some of the Pauline Missal or if he was really being at all objective.
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
The Roman Canon was used since apostolic times and it was finalized by Gregory the Great more than 1500 years ago. Eucharistic prayer #2 was invented by a committee and most references to a sacrifice were either reworded or outright omitted. Protestant theologians have said that Eucharistic prayer #2 could be practiced by a protestant minister in good conscience.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Eucharistic Prayer #2 was based on an ancient Eucharistic prayer
of St. Hippolytus, not invented. Furthermore, other Protestants have explicitly rejected that Eucharistic Prayer #2 could be said without proclaiming Catholic belief. For example, quoting from Matt1618’s work on the subject:
S
saint_rafael
Guest
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/comparison.htm
A doctrinal comparison between the superior TLM and inferior New Mass.
A doctrinal comparison between the superior TLM and inferior New Mass.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
It strikes me, after reading some of this stuff, that unhappy Catholics spend a lot of time critiquing things and complaining, while the rest of us go to Mass, partake of the Sacrements, and generally more enjoy life.
There have always been nay-sayers within the Church, we just weren’t as aware of them because they didn’t have the internet to share their beefs with everyone else.
Obviously the folks who are content in the Church don’t spend a lot of time compiling voluminous writings describing the virtues of today’s Church, probably because they’re too busy living it.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Ahh! AJV has done some outstanding work expressing some (though not even all) of my thoughts about why the Ottaviani Intervention is just… really not very accurate or perhaps even honest, at least objectively speaking, in places. Please see posts #28-31 here; forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=125260
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Please be aware that the moderators have been very clear lately that denigration of one form of Mass or another will not be tolerated.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Eh, I, at least, don’t consider what he said to be denigrating either Mass. He may be in spirit, but I don’t see a problem with saying that one Mass is superior, and that would necessarily make one inferior. I think the problem is when someone starts to bash either form of Mass as being simply objectively bad, immoral, blasphemous, etc. That’s just me, though.
C
Cat
Guest
This is exactly the way I think. Thanks so much!It strikes me, after reading some of this stuff, that unhappy Catholics spend a lot of time critiquing things and complaining, while the rest of us go to Mass, partake of the Sacrements, and generally more enjoy life.
There have always been nay-sayers within the Church, we just weren’t as aware of them because they didn’t have the internet to share their beefs with everyone else.
Obviously the folks who are content in the Church don’t spend a lot of time compiling voluminous writings describing the virtues of today’s Church, probably because they’re too busy living it.
I agree with the thesis posed in the OP–the arguments for the superiority of the TLM are based on emotion and personal preference.
Both Masses are fully approved by the Catholic Church, and that’s the important thing. Enjoy the Mass of your choice, and if you don’t live somewhere where the Mass of your choice is available, offer it up.
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
Cardinal Ottaviani did not write the study of the Mass known as the Ottaviani Intervention. It was written by 12 theologians. Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci wrote the forward to the study. Cardinal Bacci gave the study to Pope Paul who forwarded it to the Consilium writing the New Mass.
The New Mass was delayed by about 6 months because of the study.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Has not anyone notice the last 40 years of liturgical disaster? The collapse of vocations and Mass attendance?
This shows the RELATIVISM that has ruled the world and infected the Church for decades.
The Relativism that says you are okay, I am okay, there is your truth and my truth. It is all about feeling.
The question is which is the Truth? Which Mass is OBJECTIVELY superior? It is not about feelings or emotions but in the objective sense about which better represents the Catholic faith. What is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH in this case?
This is a valid question with a valid answer.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
How do you propose to answer it?
S
saint_rafael
Guest
There are many proponents on both sides. The Church needs serious debates and arguments. The truth is found through history, tradition, observation, reason, and the guidance of others.
The two Missals can be compared along with the debates over their theology, doctrine, usefulness, and efectiveness.
my resource:
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/index.htm
The two Missals can be compared along with the debates over their theology, doctrine, usefulness, and efectiveness.
my resource:
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/index.htm
S
Sarpedon
Guest
I don’t have the time to read through all those links. Here’s my question: if the EF is objectively superior to the OF, then why has the Church allowed the OF?
The problem with using symbolic arguments in favor of the EF is that they can easily be turned around into an argument for the OF. For example, I have heard it argued that the ad orientem position better reflects the fact that the Mass is a prayer to God, because all are faced the same way toward the cross. However, couldn’t you just as easily say that the ad populum position better represents the communion of saints with God, since the priest acts in persona Christe and the people are faced together toward him in a community? Which symbolism is superior, and how do we decide?
.
E
edward_george
Guest
I would think that the real argument is not so much reaction to emotionalism but more of one from continuity of tradition–the hermeneutic of continuity that Pope Benedict has written about. The Novus Ordo is seen as a rupture of the ongoing development of the liturgy, while the TLM is more in keeping with where things have been going over the last several years. One thing that I find very interesting is the argument that is sometimes employed that the Novus Ordo is somehow “more traditional” because the prayers and practices are derived from the 4th Century. Dom Aidan Nichols, OP, in his critique of the modern Roman Rite says that this viewpoint is derived in large part from the 18th century Enlightenment liturgists who had a great fixation with the 4th century–and engaged in appeals to that time when it suited their purposes. Just because something is older doesn’t mean that it is better; the Mass as it was before Vatican II was the product of centuries of tradition–and the council only called for modest changes to it. The implementation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the other hand, was not in keeping at all with SC. Read declaration Inter Oecumenici sometime.
Tradition should not be based on picking out the old bits that we like and pasting them into our current missal. It should be about organic growth and development. We don’t graft the roots of a tree onto the top of it to make it taller, do we? No, we let the roots stay where they started, and we let the tree grow as it will–all the while maintaining the same essence that makes it a tree.
So to better answer the question posed here, reacting to the emotionalism of the charismatics, as you say, is not only not the basis for most arguments in favor of the TLM, it is a terrible idea. The problem with reacting to an extreme is that oftentimes the reactors first go to the opposite extreme, and they do this with such momentum that they end up doing exactly what they opposed to begin with. So most of the time, I would think, when people adopt arguments for the TLM based on reaction, they end up becoming just as emotional about the TLM as the charismatics are about their own liturgies. Not saying that this is always the case, it’s just that your reasons for favoring the TLM need to be founded in something more substantial than “it’s not charismatic and emotional.”
-ACEGC
Tradition should not be based on picking out the old bits that we like and pasting them into our current missal. It should be about organic growth and development. We don’t graft the roots of a tree onto the top of it to make it taller, do we? No, we let the roots stay where they started, and we let the tree grow as it will–all the while maintaining the same essence that makes it a tree.
So to better answer the question posed here, reacting to the emotionalism of the charismatics, as you say, is not only not the basis for most arguments in favor of the TLM, it is a terrible idea. The problem with reacting to an extreme is that oftentimes the reactors first go to the opposite extreme, and they do this with such momentum that they end up doing exactly what they opposed to begin with. So most of the time, I would think, when people adopt arguments for the TLM based on reaction, they end up becoming just as emotional about the TLM as the charismatics are about their own liturgies. Not saying that this is always the case, it’s just that your reasons for favoring the TLM need to be founded in something more substantial than “it’s not charismatic and emotional.”
-ACEGC
C
Cat
Guest
St. Rafael, I guess I’m having a bit of a hard time with your statement about declining Mass attendance.
I’m now attending, as is my husband and daughter. We are all converts from evangelical Protestantism. And we know lots of others.
Perhaps rather than looking at everything with such a gloomy attitude, you should try looking at the Church with a positive attitude. There are so many good things–see the thread “What I Like About the Catholic Church.”
S
Sarpedon
Guest
Amen! Often it seems as if traditionalists often become emotional in exactly the same way as those they criticize, only reversed.
What other reason for favoring the TLM would you have other than beauty and reverence (which are clearly subjective and emotional, in this case)?
S
saint_rafael
Guest
The Church has all allowed it because of the negligence of the hierarchy. Pope Paul VI was a weak man and he fell victim to the allure of ecumenism and thought the Protestants would flock to the Church if the liturgy was similar.
The Church through her agents have failed to fix the mess and destruction of the liturgy.
This can all be a result of a chastisement by God. God has allowed this to punish the Church for her sins.
The prblem is that the priest has never faced the laity in the history of the Church. The Mass has always been Ad Orientem or towards the Lord since the earliest records of the 2nd century.
Ad Populum is a complete invention of the Protestants because they do not believe in the sacrafice of the Mass. Community is not the proper understanding of the Mass, it’s Protestant. Catholic teaching is that the Mass is a sacrafice and a propitiatory for sin. The liturgy is about the glorification of God and not the community.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
I find it hard to believe that God would allow His church to practically fall away like this.
That’s a strange way of looking at it- God is angered by our sin, so gives us a lesser liturgy? Doesn’t God want us to come back?
What about the Last Supper? I always imagined it being around a table, not Jesus facing away from his disciples toward a wall or something.
Just because something has been done for a long time does not make it necessary.
Can you back this up with a Church document?
- Status