Debate: Novus Ordo vs. TLM; Traditional vs. Traditionalist

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You have abandoned the primary received tradition that makes one “Catholic”; obedience and submission to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the Pope. Lacking this you are no different than Protestants who think that God has allowed the gates of hell to prevail over His Church and seek to correct her. The difference is that Protestants don’t pretend to be Catholics.

I wonder how long this thread will last?

I have a comment for you with respect to the “disobedience” of Traditionalist.

For 37 years Catholics were led to believe that the Old Mass was forbidden. The Priests who continued to say the old Mass were persecuted. John Paul II issued two Indults for the Old Mass, thereby confirming to all that indeed the old Mass had been forbidden (since an Indult is permission to do what the law does not permit). For all those years the Traditionalists argue that there was no need for special permission to say the Old Mass since it had never been abrogated, or “forbidden”. Of course that argument met with nothing but scorn from the lovers of novelty. The old Mass was fobidden and they had the words and actions of the Popes to prove it. Therefore, anyone who offered, or attended, an “unapproved” Traditional Mass was disobedient at best and schismatic at worst.’

Then, low and behold, after 37 years our new Pope came out and admitted that the Traditionalists had been right all along, and that the old Mass never was “forbidden”. What does that mean? It means that those who pretended it was were abusing their authority by forbidding it, and that theTraditionalists were, in reality, not being truly disobedient (even though it appeared that they were) since an authority has no right to forbid what is allowed. To do so is an abuse of authority.

We could also go into the “pro multis” argument, wherein Rome came out, after 37 years of saying and implying the contrary, and admitted that what the Traditionalists had been saying all along was correct. And, implicitly, that the document issued by Rome in the early '70’s was dead wrong.

And now we have Rome coming out and confirming another thing that Traditionalists have been saying all along: That communion in the hand leads to a lessening of devotion towards the Eucharist.

With the passing of John Paul II the Great, the Church leadership is coming back to their senses. The "new spingtimt (read great apostasy), seems to be coming to and end… which is bringing the vindication of the Traditionalists, who, like the Machabees of old, refused to follow blind leaders of the blind and instead chose to "hold fast to Tradition’. Like St. Athanasius, the Traditionalists were hated by the world during the past 40 years, but will be, and are being, vindicated over and over again. When the present crisis is over, it will be the Traditionalists (those who preserved the true faith and true mass) who will be the heros… and Archbishop Lefebvre - who, like St. Athanasius was excommunicated and spent years in apparent schism - will be vindicated and raised to the altars.

And the good part is that the tide is already turning. Let us thank God for giving us Pope Benedict XVI who is behaving like a real Pope and governing the Church. May he find the strength to continue on his current path… May Peter, after 40 years of catching nothing, at last “cast his net on the right side of the boat”.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I have met Traditionalists who have insisted that our Lord and the Apostles originally spoke Latin and that the Bible was translated from this Latin into Greek.

Actually, it’s not so far-fetched that the Apostles might have known SOME Latin. It’s probably likely that St. Peter had some fluency in Latin; after all, he went to Rome, didn’t he? And doubtless St. Paul, being one of the most educated men of his time and a Roman citizen spoke Latin, too.

 

[Alexios]

I’ve never met a Traditionalist who thinks Jesus spoke in Latin every day or that the Bible was translated from Latin into Greek. And I know a good many traditionalists. I find this simply hard to believe.

 

[roncriss]

So have all the other Rites innovated in this regard as well? The Byzantines commune by intinction (in the mouth), as do many others. No one places Communion in the laity’s hands. So, everyone has innovated? Or have we come to a fuller appreciation of the Eucharist.

I think it is all about convenience. Actually I like the whole intinction thing and wish we had the spoon and cup like in the East. But the difference is not crucial.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

For a real comparision, link to the following.
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

That’s exactly the same comparison I have on file at my group. I guess you’re a “glass half empty” guy and I’m a “glass half full” guy. I see the resemblance while you see the difference.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

For 37 years Catholics were led to believe that the Old Mass was forbidden. The Priests who continued to say the old Mass were persecuted. John Paul II issued two Indults for the Old Mass, thereby confirming to all that indeed the old Mass had been forbidden (since an Indult is permission to do what the law does not permit). For all those years the Traditionalists argue that there was no need for special permission to say the Old Mass since it had never been abrogated, or “forbidden”. Of course that argument met with nothing but scorn from the lovers of novelty. The old Mass was fobidden and they had the words and actions of the Popes to prove it. Therefore, anyone who offered, or attended, an “unapproved” Traditional Mass was disobedient at best and schismatic at worst.’

Then, low and behold, after 37 years our new Pope came out and admitted that the Traditionalists had been right all along, and that the old Mass never was “forbidden”. What does that mean? It means that those who pretended it was were abusing their authority by forbidding it, and that theTraditionalists were, in reality, not being truly disobedient (even though it appeared that they were) since an authority has no right to forbid what is allowed. To do so is an abuse of authority.

You are unfortunately confused. The Tridentine Rite was not forbidden, but the priest who served it were required to get permission from their bishop. The Pope merely broadened the approval by allowing any priest to serve it without needing the direct approval of the bishop.

And, yes, anyone who disobeyed the Pope and the local bishop by attending an unapproved mass of any kind is being disobedient. Such a mass is illicit, though valid. It is worse if they attended the mass of a schismatic group such as the SSPX. At a certain point disobedience becomes schism.

Ron

 

[havemercy]

There is no such thing as the Tridentine Rite. This “debate” is already misdirected.

There is the Roman Liturgy, which has its definite origin even before Pope Gregory I, and which has been developing gradually up to, including, and also after Trent. However, what Pope Paul VI promulgated was not an updated version of this established tradition, but was something new, a slapdash concoction of prayers both old and newly written wrapped around a minimalist bare bones structure of the Mass. It was, in every sense of the word, new. It did not claim to be of the same root as the Classical Roman Liturgy, but was known by its admirers as a Ritus Modernus, a Modern Rite. The study in this area is by no means exhaustive, but is rather clear from what has been written and recorder. The Novus Ordo is quite simply, not Traditional, and it was not meant to be (read what His Holiness Paul VI said in his general audiences pertaining to the Novus Ordo).

Scholars and liturgists to check out: Adrian Fortesque and Klaus Gamber.

 

[roncriss]

I have met Traditionalists who have insisted that our Lord and the Apostles originally spoke Latin and that the Bible was translated from this Latin into Greek.

Actually, it’s not so far-fetched that the Apostles might have known SOME Latin. It’s probably likely that St. Peter had some fluency in Latin; after all, he went to Rome, didn’t he? And doubtless St. Paul, being one of the most educated men of his time and a Roman citizen spoke Latin, too.

Koine Greek was the “lingua franca” of the ancient world. Even in Rome. It wasn’t till the later centuries that the Western Empire moved more toward the vulgar Latin spread by the Roman soldiers. In Peter’s time Greek was the most common tongue in the East (hence the “Greek churches”) and in Rome. Knowing a little Latin is quite different from speaking Latin commonly as these folks suggest in an attempt to make the Tridentine Rite the original it is not.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

I’ve never met a Traditionalist who thinks Jesus spoke in Latin every day or that the Bible was translated from Latin into Greek. And I know a good many traditionalists. I find this simply hard to believe.

Do you want me to introduce you? Come over to my NO group. I’ve got one there.

Ron

 

[havemercy]

Do you want me to introduce you? Come over to my NO group. I’ve got one there.

Ron

This person is simply wrong. He seems to be living in what I like to call a “Roman bubble”. I’m an Eastern Catholic, so I’m really quite sensitive to some tendencies of my Latin brothers and sisters (both the “Traditionalist” and “Conservative” flavors), however well intentioned they are, and however venerable the Roman Church is.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I’ve never met a Traditionalist who thinks Jesus spoke in Latin every day or that the Bible was translated from Latin into Greek. And I know a good many traditionalists. I find this simply hard to believe.

All due respect, I don’t think that matters. Just because certain individuals in a group are misinformed, we cannot assume that the group’s ideas are incorrect.

 

[roncriss]

There is no such thing as the Tridentine Rite. This “debate” is already misdirected.

There is the Roman Liturgy, which has its definite origin even before Pope Gregory I, and which has been developing gradually up to, including, and also after Trent. However, what Pope Paul VI promulgated was not an updated version of this established tradition, but was something new, a slapdash concoction of prayers both old and newly written wrapped around a minimalist bare bones structure of the Mass. It was, in every sense of the word, new. It did not claim to be of the same root as the Classical Roman Liturgy, but was known by its admirers as a Ritus Modernus, a Modern Rite. The Novus Ordo is quite simply, not Traditional.

Scholars and liturgists to check out: Adrian Fortesque and Klaus Gamber.

Q. Is the Tridentine Mass another name for the Latin Mass?
A. No. The Tridentine Mass is so called because it is the form of Mass produced for the Western church after the Council of Trent, a town in northern Italy, whose name in Latin is “Tridentum”. The Council lasted, on and off, from 1545 to 1563. In its 22nd session (September 1562) the doctrine of the Mass was defined, as were things to be observed or avoided in its celebration. By a decree of the Council, the actual reform of the Mass rite was left to the Pope, then Pius IV, though it was actually his successor, Pius V who carried out, or at least supervised, the work.
The ‘Tridentine Missal’ (1570) was the result, and it remained in force for exactly 400 years until Pope Paul VI, when the present Missal came into use.
(Latin Liturgy Association website)

 

[havemercy]

Q. Is the Tridentine Mass another name for the Latin Mass?
A. No. The Tridentine Mass is so called because it is the form of Mass produced for the Western church after the Council of Trent, a town in northern Italy, whose name in Latin is “Tridentum”. The Council lasted, on and off, from 1545 to 1563. In its 22nd session (September 1562) the doctrine of the Mass was defined, as were things to be observed or avoided in its celebration. By a decree of the Council, the actual reform of the Mass rite was left to the Pope, then Pius IV, though it was actually his successor, Pius V who carried out, or at least supervised, the work.
The ‘Tridentine Missal’ (1570) was the result, and it remained in force for exactly 400 years until Pope Paul VI, when the present Missal came into use.
(Latin Liturgy Association website)

It is still incorrect to refer to this Mass as “Tridentine” just as it is a mistake to call the Missale Romanum the “Missal of Pius V”. This is because what happened with Quo Primum and the promulgation of the Missale Romanum was not the promulgation of a new rite or liturgy, but the consolidation of a plethora of Roman and Western European liturgical traditions. After the Reformation it was fitting to standardize the missal in use in Rome, and indeed, this missal’s use was only mandated for Rome. Other cities with even 200 year old (young) traditions weren’t expected to keep it (i.e. Ambrosian Rite). Still, many priests in dioceses far from Rome decided to use it, and eventually over time it had been used widely.

 

[AJV]

How can you say that there is litte new in the New Rite… Just consider the beginning of Mass. In the OF the priest goes directly to the altar. In the Traditional Mass the priest is forbidden to go directly to the altar. He must first say the prayers at the foot of the altar where he must make his confession. Only then can he approach the altar.
The Prayers at the foot of the Altar symbolize the Agony in the Garden. A symbolism destroyed in the New Mass. The difference is amazing.

The symbolisms are not inherent in the Traditional Mass because they are many and varied. Very few things in the Traditional Mass were put there with the express idea of symbolism. I think previous on the forum I had linked to when Amalarius proposed this method- it was called an “invention” though it became very popular later.

The only reason the NO does not have symbolism is because no one has attributed symbolism to it. But it’s quite possible. For example:

Why does the priest kiss the altar and then go to the chair?
To signify the kiss given to our Lord by the wicked Judas and his binding and being taken to be judged.

What means the standing of the priest until the Old Testament reading?
To represent the standing of our Lord before the Chief Priest and the Council of the Jews while the holy apostle Peter waited outside.

What is the meaning of the Act of Penitence?
It signifies the holy apostle Peter’s rejection of our Lord Jesus Christ and his abject contrition.

What is the meaning of the words “Kyrie eleison”?
It signifies “Lord have mercy” and is said together with “Christe eleison” to represent the three-fold denial of our Lord.

What is the meaning of the Gloria in exclesis Deo?
It represents our blessed Lord’s words to the Jews “you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven”

What is the meaning of the readings?
They too signify the trial of the Lord, namely
The sitting at the First Reading represents Christ before the Council of the Jews.
The Responsorial psalm represents Christ before Pilate, on which account the responses are added to represent the repeated accusations against him
The Second Reading, as is the case, on the high holy days, represents our Lord before Herod

Why does the priest sit still and not read the readings?
In memory of the actions of our Lord: for he answered nothing except to give confession and to say “Thou has said it”. On which account the priest says at the end “Thanks be to God”.

What is the meaning of the Gospel?
It represents the final judgment of our Lord when Pilate displayed him unto the multitude, and for this reason the priest faces the people, and the people stand.

Why does the priest salute the people “The Lord be with you” before the reading of the Gospel?
In memory of Pilate displaying our blessed Lord to the crowd as king of the Jews and saying “Behold the Man”

Why do the priest and people sign themselves on the forehead, lips and breast with the cross?
To represent the cries of the multitude “Crucify him, crucify him, crucify him”

 

[Cranch]

East and West is right. There was nothing doctrinal or dogmatically binding in Vatican II, by John XXIII’s (or maybe Paul VI’s?) own admission. It was intentionally a “pastoral council.”

This is an old cannard. There is nothing mutually exclusive between “pastoral” and “binding”, or “infallible” for that matter. Search as you might you will not find any quote from the Pope or decrees of the council that it was any less authoritative than any other ecumenical council.

The web site romancatholicism.org is not above quoting Cardinal Ratzinger when it suits their purpose and elsewhere listing the “heresies of Benedict XVI.” However this page containing many quotes does make for interesting reading. For example:“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”

— Pope Paul VI, General Audience, December 1, 1966 (published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)
​

 

[stmaria]

The symbolisms are not inherent in the Traditional Mass because they are many and varied. Very few things in the Traditional Mass were put there with the express idea of symbolism. I
The only reason the NO does not have symbolism is because no one has attributed symbolism to it. But it’s quite possible.

You would have to make up symbolism in the NO. It doesn’t exist
The symbolism in the TLM has been handed down…

Douay Catechism of 1649.
Q. 954. What meaneth the priest’s coming back three steps from the Altar, and humbling himself before he begins?
A. It signifies the prostrating of Christ in the garden, when he began his passion.
Q. 955. Why doth the priest bow himself again at the Confiteor?
A. To move the people to humiliation; and to signify that by the merits and passion of Christ, (which they are there to commemorate) salvation may be had, if it be sought with
a contrite and humble heart.
Q. 976. Why do we rise up at the reading of the Gospel?
A. To signify our readiness to go, and do, whither, and whatsoever it commands us.
Q. 978. Why is the Gospel read at the North end, or left side of the Altar?
A. To signify that by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, the kingdom of the Devil was overthrown.
Q. 979. How prove you that?
A. Because the Devil hath chosen the North (figuratively infidels, and the wicked) for the seat of his malice. “From the North shall all evil be opened upon all the inhabitants of the land.” Jer. i. 14. and Zach. ii. 7.
Q. 980. Why doth the priest before he begins the Gospel, salute the people with Dominus vobiscum?
A. To prepare them for a devout hearing of it, and to beg of our Lord to make them worthy hearers of his word, which can save their souls.
.
Q. 989. Why then doth the priest wash the ends of his fingers?
A. To admonish both himself and the people to wash away the unclean thoughts of their hearts, that so they may partake of that clean sacrifice: As also to signify, that the priest is, ought to be clean from mortal sin.

Q. 993. What is the Canon?
A. It is a most sacred, essential, and substantial part of the mass, because in it the sacrifice is effected.
Q. 994. Why is the Canon read with a low voice?
A. To signify the sadness in our Saviour’s passion, which is there effectually represented.
Q. 995. Why doth the priest begin the Canon bowing his head?
A. To signify the obedience of Christ unto his Father in making himself a sacrifice to sin.
Q. 997. Why in the middle of this prayer doth the priest kiss the altar, and sign the Host and Chalice thrice with the sign of the cross?
A. He kisseth the altar, to show the kiss of peace which Christ gave us, by reconciling us to God in his own blood. He signeth the Host and Chalice thrice to signify that our redemption made upon the Cross, was done by the will of the Holy Trinity.
.
Q. 1001. Why then doth he sign the offerings again five times?
A. To signify the mystery of those five days which were between our Saviour’s entry into Jerusalem and his passion.
Q. 1003. What are the words of consecration?
A. “Hoc est corpus meum. &c. This is my body; This is the cup of my blood, of the New and eternal Testament; a mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you, and for the many,
to the remission of sins.” Matt. xxvi. 27, 28.

Q. 1005. Why after consecration of the Host, doth the priest kneel and adore?
A. He kneels and adores, to give sovereign honour to Christ, and signify the real presence
of his body and blood in the blessed sacrament which he then holds in his hand.
QQ. 1007. Why after consecration of each, doth the priest elevate, or lift up the consecrated host and chalice?
A. That all the people may adore the body and blood of Christ, as also to signify, that for our sins his body was lifted on the Cross and his blood shed.
Q. 1009. Why then doth he again sign the offerings five times with the sign of the Cross?
A. To signify the five wounds of Christ, which he represents to the eternal Father for us.
Q. 1013. Why then, uncovering the chalice, doth he sign it five times with the Host?
A. His uncovering the chalice is to signify, that at the death of Christ the veil of the temple was rent asunder. The three crosses made over the chalice, signify the three hours which Christ hung dead on the cross; the other two made at the brim of the chalice,
signifying the blood and water flowing from his side.
Q. 1015. What means the priest laying down the Host upon the corporal, and then covering the chalice again?
A. It signifies the taking of our Saviour down from the Cross, and his burial.

Q. 1017. Why is the Host divided into three parts?
A. To signify the division of our Saviour’s soul and body made on the Cross, and that the body was broken, and divided in three principle parts, namely his hands, side, and feet.
Q. 1024. What means the Domine non sum dignus, &c.?
A. It signifies, “O Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof; but only say the word,” &c. And it was the Centurion’s prayer, by which he obtained health for the sick boy, Matt. viii. 8. And teacheth us not to approach this sacrifice, but with an humble and contrite heart.
.
Q. 1026. What means the words Ite Missa est?
A. They signify, that the Host is offered, Mass ended, and the people dismissed; representing the voice of the angel dismissing the apostles and disciples when they stood looking up after Christ ascended into heaven, with, “O ye men of Galilee, why stand you here looking up into heaven?” Acts i. 11.

 

[AJV]

You would have to make up symbolism in the NO. It doesn’t exist
The symbolism in the TLM has been handed down…

I disagree, but I would like to see any evidence you have that it has.

It’s been made up to “fit” the Mass. You can see Jungmann’s work on the Mass for a nice history and synopsis. Secondly the sheer number of different expositions proves that it’s not been handed down. At the back of Gavanti and Merati’s work on the rubrics you can see several sets on the “Vita Christi”

Regrettably there is no English translation I could find, but it is here in Latin (pg 269). Read what a certain Florus the deacon had to say when Amalarius of Metz started interpreting the parts of the Mass mystically- chalice being the tomb and so forth. See how he even titles it “falsioque adinventiones Amalarii”.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

This demonstrates the error of traditionalism. The Tridentine Rite was not handed down from the Apostles. I have met Traditionalists who have insisted that our Lord and the Apostles originally spoke Latin and that the Bible was translated from this Latin into Greek. Traditionalism is all about a disobedient clinging to the aesthetic of a particular historical era, not received tradition. It places personal preference over catholicity. Perhaps if Traditionalists really knew their history they would not have chosen the name of a past heresy to lable themselves.

Uh, NO!!! We don’t think that the Tridentine rite was handed down from the Apostles nor that the Apostles spoke latin. However, we do feel that the Tridentine rite expresses the faith much more clearly than does the NO. That doesn’t mean I have a problem with the NO or that I think its invalid. On the contrary, I think that the NO is quite beautiful when celebrated properly, ad orientum, with actual sacred music (as opposed to the secular “Christian Music” we see in mass now days), and done so according to the rubrics. You assume quite a bit about what I think.

But you got to admit that you can get that impression from some of our more “radical” brethern. I know, on another BBS, there was that impression from one member there.

If E&W. If you ever get to Detroit, visit Assumption Grotto. They do the Ordinary Form of the Mass like you said above and they have the Extraordinary form daily.

On the daily OF Mass (7 PM), if Fr. W is doing the Mass, it is almost completely in Latin(the responses during the reading are in english). From what I have heard, I believe he also does the Sunday OF Mass completely in Latin.

 

[roncriss]

The symbolisms are not inherent in the Traditional Mass because they are many and varied. Very few things in the Traditional Mass were put there with the express idea of symbolism. I think previous on the forum I had linked to when Amalarius proposed this method- it was called an “invention” though it became very popular later.

The only reason the NO does not have symbolism is because no one has attributed symbolism to it. But it’s quite possible. For example:

I added a link to your blog at my NO Yahoo group.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

The web site romancatholicism.org is not above quoting Cardinal Ratzinger when it suits their purpose and elsewhere listing the “heresies of Benedict XVI.” However this page containing many quotes does make for interesting reading. For example:“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”

— Pope Paul VI, General Audience, December 1, 1966 (published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)
​

Yes, we are not talking about proclaiming any new dogmas. It says nothing about the infallibility of the council or its authority for Catholics who believe the Holy Spirit seaks through an ecumenical council approved by a pope. The reform of the liturgy is not a dogma. What traditionalists who deny V2 are in effect doing is agreeing with Protestants that the Pope and Catholic ecumenical councils can err. Ironically these traditionalists believe themselves so infallible and inspired as to correct a council and a pope! Or should I say many popes? They seem to have more problems with the popes than the Protestants do.

If the Traditionalists are correct then perhaps the Protestants were right to instruct Rome on her errors? If popes and ecumenical councils cannot be trusted then there is no ultimate authority in the Church. Any man’s opinion is equal. Protestants would be right, only the Bible is authoritative and that depends on personal interpretation. That is the direction pointed to by Traditionalism, individualism vs authority.

Ron