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

[Alexios]

Ron,

I’ve never argued that CITH is inherently wrong, as it was done in the early Church. It therefore can’t be inherently wrong. But it is VERY wrong for our time and place, and has been for WELL over a millennium. It should absolutely be rescinded, and has given occasion for countless abuses of the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord.

And as others were saying, the Traditional Mass isn’t 400 years old! Its origins lay in the earliest Christian liturgies of Rome, Gallicanized at some point between the 4th and 6th/7th centuries and basically to its present form under Pope St. Gregory the Great, with some notable additions here and there.

What would a liturgy costructed in the 16th century be worth fighting about? To my mind, very little.

 

[AJV]

Ron,

I’ve never argued that CITH is inherently wrong, as it was done in the early Church. It therefore can’t be inherently wrong. But it is VERY wrong for our time and place, and has been for WELL over a millennium. It should absolutely be rescinded, and has given occasion for countless abuses of the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord.

:yup:

And as others were saying, the Traditional Mass isn’t 400 years old! Its origins lay in the earliest Christian liturgies of Rome, Gallicanized at some point between the 4th and 6th/7th centuries

I think you meant the 7-8th century onward

and basically to its present form under Pope St. Gregory the Great, with some notable additions here and there

.

While I do appreciate the idea of St. Gregory laying the basis for the liturgy in many ways (lections, parts of the temporale, older parts of the sanctorale), I feel that saying that it was “basically in its present form” is a bit misleading because it is mainly the removal of the “notable additions” that cause so many to criticise the OF, is it not?

What would a liturgy constructed in the 16th century be worth fighting about? To my mind, very little.

I feel that even if it was constructed in the 16th century, it would indeed be worth fighting for on many other counts. Sacrality, the orientation of its worship , its fundamental nature. The revisers of the NO, IMO, lost out when dealing with accretions et al. They operated under the supposition that certain elements were only representative of the later mentality- that the ‘pure’ worship had to be streamlined in simple. Ergo, the disappearance of most of the postures, the crossings, and even to an extent the sacral language in the Latin original (the English translation of the remnant of it is merely the product of such thinking to its extent).

 

[AlexV]

The so-called Tridentine Mass was NOT constructed in the 16th century. Anyone who argues that is ignorant of history.

 

[SemperFidelis]

(Dead horse alert )

Nope-- not a good comparison.

A comparison of a translation with a REALLY bad translation is no comparison at all. If you’re going to compare, compare the Latin texts.

Ah yes, because so many Novus Ordo Masses are in Latin. Something to such a great extent that it’s maybe like what, less than 1%?

 

[roncriss]

Ron,

I’ve never argued that CITH is inherently wrong, as it was done in the early Church. It therefore can’t be inherently wrong. But it is VERY wrong for our time and place, and has been for WELL over a millennium. It should absolutely be rescinded, and has given occasion for countless abuses of the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord.

And as others were saying, the Traditional Mass isn’t 400 years old! Its origins lay in the earliest Christian liturgies of Rome, Gallicanized at some point between the 4th and 6th/7th centuries and basically to its present form under Pope St. Gregory the Great, with some notable additions here and there.

What would a liturgy costructed in the 16th century be worth fighting about? To my mind, very little.

The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit commanded reform. The Tridentine Rite is no longer appropriate for our times. As good Catholics we owe obedience to the Magisterium. We should not disobey the HS and the Magisterium because of personal taste. What it amounts to is the traditionalists putting their opinion and their preference over that of the Church. Due to the hardness of their hearts the Pope has allowed the old rite to be celebrated so the obstinate will not endanger their souls be schism. It is just like the way Moses granted divorce and multiple marriage in the OT.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

The so-called Tridentine Mass was NOT constructed in the 16th century. Anyone who argues that is ignorant of history.

No one suggested that. Similarly the NO was not constructed in the 20th Century. It built on those before it, but was a product of its time as well.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

Ah yes, because so many Novus Ordo Masses are in Latin. Something to such a great extent that it’s maybe like what, less than 1%?

The NO IS a Latin Mass. I know some folks think America and England ARE the Church, but the English is only a translation from the Latin of the NO. Surprise, surprise! That’s why we don’t call the Tridentine Rite simply “the Latin Mass”, because its not about the language.

Ron

 

[SemperFidelis]

The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit commanded reform.

Yes and interesting to note that the TLM is actually closer to what Sacrosanctum Concilium actually says, than the NO. Perhaps the Holy Ghost just wanted Paul VI to create the NO to protect the TLM from abuses. I’m glad you speak with certainty for the will of the Holy Ghost though. Organic is the key word here my friend. Something the NO will never be. It will always be a “fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

The Tridentine Rite is no longer appropriate for our times.

Too bad the Pope doesn’t agree with you. The fact that it is growing by leaps and bounds (largely due to young people like myself) after only four months since Summorum Pontificum went into effect speaks volumes about the utter absurdity of your baseless argument.

As good Catholics we owe obedience to the Magisterium.

Well, why don’t you do that then?

cont’d below:

We should not disobey the HS and the Magisterium because of personal taste. What it amounts to is the traditionalists putting their opinion and their preference over that of the Church. Due to the hardness of their hearts the Pope has allowed the old rite to be celebrated so the obstinate will not endanger their souls be schism. It is just like the way Moses granted divorce and multiple marriage in the OT.

Ron

I’m glad you have the authority to speak for the aims of Pope Benedict XVI now too. Seems to me you have some “beef” with the Holy Father and with Summorum Pontificum. Who’s being disobedient now? Take your TLM “bashing” elsewhere please.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Too bad the Pope doesn’t agree with you. The fact that it is growing by leaps and bounds (largely due to young people like myself) after only four months since Summorum Pontificum went into effect speaks volumes about the utter absurdity of your baseless argument.

Where do you get support data for the claim of ‘leaps and bounds’?

 

[SemperFidelis]

The NO IS a Latin Mass.

Never said it wasnt.

I know some folks think America and England ARE the Church,

Well, I wouldn’t be one of those folks. Since you seem to know everything though, what percentage of NO’s do you think are actually offered in Latin and not in the vernacular?

but the English is only a translation

Yes and a absolutely horrible translation at that.

from the Latin of the NO.

Yes and Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci still had “issues” with the NO in Latin. I’d shutter to think what they’d say about the current ICEL translation. And this isn’t something that’s just limited to English speaking countries, but something that effects several translations in many languages.

Surprise, surprise! That’s why we don’t call the Tridentine Rite simply “the Latin Mass”, because its not about the language.

Not at all a suprise to me. I’d like to know where in my previous post I called the TLM the “Latin Mass” to the exclusion of the NO in Latin. In fact I went to a NO in Latin long before I ever went to a TLM. Thanks for making another baseless assumption and accusation though. You know, it would actually help your argument if you quit assuming that everybody you speak to doesn’t know such things.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Where do you get support data for the claim of ‘leaps and bounds’?

You don’t have to look too far:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=177324

That’s just in the US, and I’m willing to bet that ain’t even all of them. Things are also looking up in the Philippines, Europe, South America, etc. On top of that, that’s with most of the hierarchy of the Roman Rite trying in some way to stop or curtail the interest by issuing ridiculous norms and making absurd statements about the TLM. Just wait until the hierarchy is actually behind SP. The leaps and bounds might then just blow you away.

 

[Alexios]

For all those who love to sling mud and say that traditional Catholics somehow think they’re “more Catholic than the Pope,” I would like to know if they heartily agree with Pope Benedict who has described the NO just as Semper said: “a banal, on-the-spot product.”

 

[stmaria]

=roncriss;3264932]The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit commanded reform. The Tridentine Rite is no longer appropriate for our times

.
Did the Holy Spirit command Annibale Bugnini and his group #10 to ignore the *Constitution on the Liturgy *and create their own Mass? DId the Holy Spirit command them to introduce communion in the hand, priest facing the people, replacing the Canon with optional Eucharistic prayers, removal of the Tabernacle, pop music, change the words of Consecration etc. The Mass of the Constitution was promulgated in 1965. Partly in Latin and partly in the vernacular. The reform should have gone no further.
coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

.

Due to the hardness of their hearts the Pope has allowed the old rite to be celebrated so the obstinate will not endanger their souls be schism. Ron

No, the Pope knows what went on with Father Bugnini and group #10. They over stepped their authority.
Cardinal Ratzinger: " The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy.** It is not “manufactured” by the authorities.** Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . ." (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166

 

[TMC]

It’s amazing to me that so many Catholics either willingly or recklessly misrepresent the Pope’s statements on the liturgy. Three years into his pontificate, Pope Benedict has allowed and even encouraged the celebration of the EF. He has indicated that he prefers ad orientum. But he has also clearly said that recent liturgical development has been a positive, and that he believes the decision to use the vernacular was correct. The Pope published a major work on the Eucharist last year, SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS. In that document he said:

If we consider the bimillenary history of God’s Church, guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, we can gratefully admire the orderly development of the ritual forms in which we commemorate the event of our salvation. From the varied forms of the early centuries, still resplendent in the rites of the Ancient Churches of the East, up to the spread of the Roman rite; from the clear indications of the Council of Trent and the Missal of Saint Pius V to the liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council: in every age of the Church’s history the eucharistic celebration, as the source and summit of her life and mission, shines forth in the liturgical rite in all its richness and variety. The Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, held from 2-23 October 2005 in the Vatican, gratefully acknowledged the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this rich history. In a particular way, the Synod Fathers acknowledged and reaffirmed the beneficial influence on the Church’s life of the liturgical renewal which began with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (5). The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities.(6)

This doesn’t sound like a Pope that feels the liturgy is an on the spot fabrication, or break from the past.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

This doesn’t sound like a Pope that feels the liturgy is an on the spot fabrication, or break from the past.

I’m pretty sure that’s how he described it in his own words.

 

[SemperFidelis]

It’s amazing to me that so many Catholics either willingly or recklessly misrepresent the Pope’s statements on the liturgy… This doesn’t sound like a Pope that feels the liturgy is an on the spot fabrication, or break from the past.

Take this “beef” up with the Holy Father then, because he’s the one who said it.

 

[TMC]

. No, the Pope knows what went on with Father Bugnini and group #10. They over stepped their authority.
Cardinal Ratzinger: " The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy.** It is not “manufactured” by the authorities.** Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . ." (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166

Why do you do this? You suggest that this quote from Cardinal Ratzinger refers in some way to Archbishop Bugnini. But you know it does not. This comes from a section of The Spirit of the Liturgy discussing the differing Rites within the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger warns of the danger of trying to reinvent the liturgy from scratch. But he does not say that is what the OF is.

 

[Alexios]

TMC,

What was the point of your quote? He never says a thing about the Missal of Paul VI. Nothing. He talks about the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, a totally different matter.

And it was Pope Benedict who called the liturgy a banal, on-the-spot product. If you have issue with it, take it up with him, and don’t tell people who are DIRECTLY QUOTING HIS EXACT WORDS that that he doesn’t believe exactly what he said.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I feel that even if it was constructed in the 16th century, it would indeed be worth fighting for on many other counts. Sacrality, the orientation of its worship , its fundamental nature. The revisers of the NO, IMO, lost out when dealing with accretions et al. They operated under the supposition that certain elements were only representative of the later mentality- that the ‘pure’ worship had to be streamlined in simple. Ergo, the disappearance of most of the postures, the crossings, and even to an extent the sacral language in the Latin original (the English translation of the remnant of it is merely the product of such thinking to its extent).

AJV,

I must confess, I'd somehow never quite caught your posish on the TLM and find it interesting to read.  I'd quibble with you on the English translation.  IMHO removing the -issimi and repetitions in the Latin prayers (with the exception of the much more extensive changes to Offertory) is in a different category from the damage (not merely simplification) done by the just plain bad ICEL translation.

It’s off-topic to this thread, but is something I’ve often wondered about and wanted to ask someone expert- is there any writing/theory on the “call & response” or “antiphonal” (sorry, don’t know the correct term, if there is one) method of prayer (I’m thinking particularly of chanted Masses)??
To me the participation of the congregation in this type of prayer is a great advantage of the N.O.

 

[TMC]

TMC,

What was the point of your quote? He never says a thing about the Missal of Paul VI. Nothing. He talks about the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, a totally different matter.

And it was Pope Benedict who called the liturgy a banal, on-the-spot product. If you have issue with it, take it up with him, and don’t tell people who are DIRECTLY QUOTING HIS EXACT WORDS that that he doesn’t believe exactly what he said.

I also DIRECTLY QUOTED HIS EXACT WORDS. He says that the benefits of the post-Vatican II liturgical renewal have far outweighed the abuses. Is there some other liturgy that you suppose he is referring to? Did he not believe exactly what he said when he said that? He did not refer to Missal of Paul VI in the quote you refer to, either. It is true that he has disapproved, repeatedly, of the way some have implemented the liturgical renewal. One of those times was the famous quote from the preface he wrote for a book. But less than a year ago he said, as Pope, that those abuses are outweighed by the benefits of the renewal.

Pope Benedict is unhappy with abuses. But this idea that he despises the Ordinary Form is a fantasy. This is the Mass he celebrates. I don’t think Pope Benedict has celebrated the EF as Pope. He has been Pope for three years. He has done nothing but reaffirm that the Missal of Paul VI is the ordinary form of the Mass, the lex orandi of the Latin Rite.