Are the arguments for superiority of the TLM based on the dreaded emotionalism of the charismatics?

[Sarpedon]

In my experience, people who argue that the TLM is in some way preferable to the OF usually claim that the TLM is more “reverent”. Of course, this rasies the obvious question- how do we know that it is more reverent? In my experience, these indivudals usually argue that it feels more reverent, with the incense, chanting, candles, exotic language, etc.

To me, this seems like a completely subjective assesment. Someone “feels” that the mass is more reverent (i.e. a personal, emotional experience). and then decides that his own personal experience is binding on everyone.

I find it even more annoying when these people bash charasmatics and the like for being too “emotional” and “superficial”. It seems to me that the same emotional undercurrents that are present in the charismatic movement are present in the TLM movement, namely, relying a lot on personal subjective experience.

Just my :twocents:

 

[JuanCarlos]

Here’s the two masses side by side. It speaks for itself

the-pope.com/missals.html

 

[Dempsey1919]

Mass preference entirely subjective and personal. You either like the Extraordinary Form or you don’t. Of course people who prefer the TLM will argue that it is superior…just as a charismatic will argue for the superiority of his Mass prefernce. No one is right and no one is wrong. It is entirely a matter of opinion.

 

[Sarpedon]

Here’s the two masses side by side. It speaks for itself

the-pope.com/missals.html

Is this your opinion?

 

[JuanCarlos]

No, it is the two missals objectively compared. It even does the OF the honor of beginning with Eucharistic Prayer #1 when I’d say 90% of Masses use #2

 

[ethelzguy]

Here’s the two masses side by side. It speaks for itself

the-pope.com/missals.html

So, what is the point here? I read them both. One is more wordy and superfulous, while the other is more succinct and to the point.

In any event, any dissertation on how either one is “better” than the other is purely subjective.

 

[ethelzguy]

No, it is the two missals objectively compared. It even does the OF the honor of beginning with Eucharistic Prayer #1 when I’d say 90% of Masses use #2

Actually, where I’ve attended Mass over the years, #3 is the more commonly used, with #1 and #2 getting pretty much equal billing otherwise.

Again, subjective observation. You’re trying to claim that one Eucharistic Prayer is better than the other based on word count?

 

[Lazerlike42]

I have to say, I really love the TLM.

But, there are some things about it I really don’t like, and consider even problematic. These opinions are not based on anything other than theology. i have written on them at my blog: soladeicaritas.blogspot.com/2008/02/my-thoughts-on-rite-of-pius-v.html . It was a while ago, and I did it in sort of a rush. In other words, I don’t think I really did a very good job expressing myself at times, but it still conveys the point.

The reason I am posting this is because I really hate when I hear people talking about how the TLM is very clearly superior, or objectively superior, or that sort of thing. It is not without its problems, and there are some ways in which the Pauline Missal is, in my opinion, superior.

Please recognize when I say “in some ways”. This is the key. I think each Missal has some very good things about it, and some things that could be better.

I would personally love some sort of hybrid, right in between.

 

[Spiller]

In my experience, people who argue that the TLM is in some way preferable to the OF usually claim that the TLM is more “reverent”. Of course, this rasies the obvious question- how do we know that it is more reverent? In my experience, these indivudals usually argue that it feels more reverent, with the incense, chanting, candles, exotic language, etc.

To me, this seems like a completely subjective assesment. Someone “feels” that the mass is more reverent (i.e. a personal, emotional experience). and then decides that his own personal experience is binding on everyone.

I find it even more annoying when these people bash charasmatics and the like for being too “emotional” and “superficial”. It seems to me that the same emotional undercurrents that are present in the charismatic movement are present in the TLM movement, namely, relying a lot on personal subjective experience.

Just my :twocents:

You’re right.

The charismatic movement is a recognized charism by the Church. I think those who attack it should instead be dealing with their own bushel baskets of problems that make them act that way.

The fact that many tridentiners spend so much time bemoaning problems or attacking others (just read this forum for a sample) says a great deal negative about some of the types of people (and they baggage they bring) who are attracted to “traditionalism.”

 

[Spiller]

Here’s the two masses side by side. It speaks for itself

the-pope.com/missals.html

The Pauline Mass is every bit as beautiful (perhaps even more so) than the Tridentine Mass.

 

[Spiller]

No, it is the two missals objectively compared. It even does the OF the honor of beginning with Eucharistic Prayer #1 when I’d say 90% of Masses use #2

Naw. It’s your own personal opinion.

One big problem is when people begin to believe their personal preferences are the truth.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The Pauline Mass is every bit as beautiful (perhaps even more so) than the Tridentine Mass.

Now as I have pointed out, I happen to like a lot of things about the Pauline Mass. That being said, I don’t know if I’d ever characterize it as more beautiful as the Pian Mass. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on why you suggest this.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

How so?
when I see puppet masses,
circus masses,
halloween masses,
potatoe head masses,
liturgical dancers,
sappy happy clappy music,
priest ad-libbing,
I’d say it is far from beautifull.

The Pauline Mass is every bit as beautiful (perhaps even more so) than the Tridentine Mass.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

How so?
when I see puppet masses,
circus masses,
halloween masses,
potatoe head masses,
liturgical dancers,
sappy happy clappy music,
priest ad-libbing,
**I’d say it is far from beautifull./**quote]

That’s because you’ve confused abuses of the Mass with the Mass.

 

[I_Believe]

In my experience, people who argue that the TLM is in some way preferable to the OF usually claim that the TLM is more “reverent”. Of course, this rasies the obvious question- how do we know that it is more reverent? In my experience, these indivudals usually argue that it feels more reverent, with the incense, chanting, candles, exotic language, etc.

To me, this seems like a completely subjective assesment. Someone “feels” that the mass is more reverent (i.e. a personal, emotional experience). and then decides that his own personal experience is binding on everyone.

I find it even more annoying when these people bash charasmatics and the like for being too “emotional” and “superficial”. It seems to me that the same emotional undercurrents that are present in the charismatic movement are present in the TLM movement, namely, relying a lot on personal subjective experience.

Just my :twocents:

I just browsed through the top 80 threads, and only 1, perhaps 2, show any indication whatsoever that the OP bashed, contradicted, or ridiculed VII, the Novus Ordo, or the Charismatic Movement.

I didn’t count them, but there is an overwhelming majority of OP’s in the top 80, that promote division in discussion. This has been the trend for months.

Is this what we want our first time guests to Catholic Answers Traditional Catholicism forum to see ?

The answer is obvious.

Kyrie, eleison
Christe, eleison
Kyrie, eleison

 

[Lazerlike42]

How so?
when I see puppet masses,
circus masses,
halloween masses,
potatoe head masses,
liturgical dancers,
sappy happy clappy music,
priest ad-libbing,
I’d say it is far from beautifull.

This is extremely unfair and rather dishonest, at least objectively speaking. The examples you give are not the Pauline Mass. These examples are contrary to the Pauline Missal. Even sappy happy clappy music is not envisioned according to the documents composed in and following Vatican II.

I agree with you insofar as that I am unsure what he means when he says that the Pauline Mass can be more beautiful than the Pian Mass, but the examples given here are simply not the Pauline Mass.

I put forth, as I have explained in other threads, that if we did not have the Pauline Mass, these same people would be doing this nonsense to the 1962 Missal. These are cases of people disregarding the the Pauline Missal, not lawfully celebrating it.

 

[stmaria]

=Lazerlike42;3660841]I have to say, I really love the TLM. But, there are some things about it I really don’t like, **and consider even problematic. **These opinions are not based on anything other than theology. i have written on them at my blog: soladeicaritas.blogspot.com/2008/02/my-thoughts-on-rite-of-pius-v.html . It was a while ago, and I did it in sort of a rush. In other words, I don’t think I really did a very good job expressing myself at times, but it still conveys the point.

I went to your site and read your comments. Have you read what is called the Ottaviani Intervention.? It directly addresses your preference for the following prayer in the New Mass.
“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.”

Have you ever read *Explanation of the Holy Mass *by Dom Prosper Gueranger written about 120 years ago?

 

[Lazerlike42]

I went to your site and read your comments. Have you read what is called the Ottaviani Intervention.? It directly addresses your preference for the following prayer in the New Mass.
“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.”

Have you ever read *Explanation of the Holy Mass *by Dom Prosper Gueranger written about 120 years ago?

I have not, but I have a fair idea I know what these things will say about it. I don’t consider the Pian Offertory, preface, and so on problematic from a theological or objective standpoint. I consider them so from the standpoint of the perception of the folks who are either hearing the prayers or reading along with them in their missals.

Certainly they can be understood in a perfectly orthodox way. However this, in my opinion, requires theological training of a level of which the average lay-Catholic is simply not going to have.

I would be happy to listen to any important points you wish to mention, however, if you feel they’d be helpful.

Peace and God bless

 

[Lazerlike42]

I just browsed through the top 80 threads, and only 1, perhaps 2, show any indication whatsoever that the OP bashed, contradicted, or ridiculed VII, the Novus Ordo, or the Charismatic Movement.

I didn’t count them, but there is an overwhelming majority of OP’s in the top 80, that promote division in discussion. This has been the trend for months.

Well, I don’t think the OP was referring exclusively to original posts. I do see a lot of this in the threads, regardless of what the OP is about.

One reason you don’t see this in the OPs is because it violated forum rules, and such threads are very rapidly removed. I saw it happen not 5 minutes ago in the Vocations forum.

That being said, I agree with your broader point. It is not something that all traditionalist Catholics do, and many of them are respectful.

 

[Spiller]

How so?
when I see puppet masses,
circus masses,
halloween masses,
potatoe head masses,
liturgical dancers,
sappy happy clappy music,
priest ad-libbing,
I’d say it is far from beautifull.

Those are by no means a typical celebration OF Mass. They are not a product of the liturgy but of man – much like the mangled EF Masses we hear about – past and present.

For you to bring-up such inflammatory examples is extremely bad form – but it’s not unexpected. Many of those who lack the ability to constructively critique the OF of the Mass often resort to negative hyperbole. Not uncommon in the least – but it is very transparent.

The odd part is that you seem to believe you are making a valid point or that people are buying your attempt to denigrate the OF…