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

  • Thread starter Thread starter roncriss
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eilish_Maura said:
Where do you get support data for the claim of ‘leaps and bounds’?
Click to expand...
Traditional Latin Mass sites have increased by more than 50% in german-speaking regions (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), and have more than doubled in Germany alone since Summorum Pontificum came into effect in September:

thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2008/01/development-of-tlm-celebrations-in.html

Thousands more people now have access to the Traditional Latin Mass in a region where the Church is extremely weak. The growth really is significant considering the short time frame.
 
Canons 2-4 of the Novus Ordo Missae were composed in a Swiss hotel room in the 1960s. They weren’t ancient canons that were somehow discovered and then restored to the Roman liturgy. They each have passages inspired by (sometimes approaching quotes) from fragmentary survival of texts that may or may not have been used in the liturgy, but let’s not pretend the Novus Ordo involved restoring texts from the mists of antiquity. It’s exactly what the title calls it, a New Order.
 
Ron Criss does not speak for the Church.

NOWHERE in his (frankly, ignorant) posts does he acknowledge the text of Summorum Pontificum, which does NOT speak of “obstinate” people who refuse to be “obedient” unless they somehow get their way liturgically.

Ron Criss’ posts are full of arrogance. They make the argument that a LIVING liturgy of the Church is somehow not appropriate or otherwise quite right for our times.

His views, alas, are shared by many clerics as well as laymen.

The Pope does not agree.
 
No one is saying Pope Benedict despises the NO. He clearly does not. But he recognizes what it is: banal, on-the-spot fabrication!

It absolutely MUST be scrapped. It is inorganic, and the organic nature of the Mass is not a suggestion but a requirement. The fact that people here would still defend a fabricated 1960s liturgy over a 2000 years old Tradition is very saddening and speaks to just how far modernism has crept in the Church. The fact that priests, bishops, and even Popes think this is unspeakably horrific.
 
TMC said:
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.

This doesn’t sound like a Pope that feels the liturgy is an on the spot fabrication, or break from the past.
Click to expand...
It’s called politics. It exists even in the Church. Of course he is going to say some positive things. But why do you think Pope Benedict got rid of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who had held the post of secretary of state for 15 years under Pope John Paul?
Sodana had said that the TLM had been abrogated and he refused to release the Motu Proprio.
Pope Benedict replaced him with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who is more Traditional.
Here is the latest political move. Pope Benedict removed Archbishop Piero Marini as master of papal liturgical ceremonies. He is not an advocate of the Traditional Latin Mass and so he had to go. Pope Benedict replaced him with Msgr. Guido Marini who is considered to be open to the Traditional Mass.
 
TMC said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Novus Ordo was invented from scratch by a handful of theologians that refused to follow the *Constitution on the Liturgy *and introduced things not called for anywhere in that Constitution.
 
stmaria said:
It’s called politics. It exists even in the Church. Of course he is going to say some positive things. But why do you think Pope Benedict got rid of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who had held the post of secretary of state for 15 years under Pope John Paul?
Sodana had said that the TLM had been abrogated and he refused to release the Motu Proprio.
Pope Benedict replaced him with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who is more Traditional.
Here is the latest political move. Pope Benedict removed Archbishop Piero Marini as master of papal liturgical ceremonies. He is not an advocate of the Traditional Latin Mass and so he had to go. Pope Benedict replaced him with Msgr. Guido Marini who is considered to be open to the Traditional Mass.
Click to expand...
:yawn: Call me when he actually invalidates the NO, mandates a return to Latin, or any of the things traditionalists were gleefully predicting 3 yrs ago. He’s 80, he’s knows he needs to work while the sun shines. He’s not shy, or cowardly. If he wants to make changes he knows how.

I don’t think we will ever see a return to the EF, a return to Latin, abolishing CIH, etc. I think Pope Benedict is telling the truth when he says these changes have, on balance, been good.
 
Well, TMC in perhaps 100 years we will see who is right and who’s invented liturgy is extinct.

What crackpot trads were you talking to who said all that stuff was going to change upon Benedict’s election? Most traditionalists consider him to be a Hegelian, not traditional, merely conservative.
 
By the way, the readings can be chanted/said in the vernacular in the Traditional Mass. Why would you support CITH? What is the purpose behind its use, other than to subversively convince people that it’s just like a common teddy graham that can be handled in one’s dirty hands before popping it into one’s mouth.

I would really like to know why CITH was ever allowed? I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a complete explanation of that.
 
Alexios said:
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.”
Click to expand...
I don’t know that then Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to the NO itself or the way it was served by many priests. Regardless I would have to disagree with the suggestion that the NO itself was produced on-the-spot. Clearly it was the product of much study, not an on-the-spot production.

Ron
 
stmaria said:
.
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/

.

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
Click to expand...
Bugnini and his cohorts did not create their own mass. CITH was not inherent in the NO. The priest does not face the people. He faces the altar where Christ is. As for the rest, you are wrapped up in externals. I’m sure some complained about that new-fangled Gregorian Chant when it first came out too. That’s primarily a matter of taste. Yes, I agree the so-called “contemporary” music is ****. But its not inherent in the NO. I’ve seen the NO performed quite nicely with incense, Gregorian Chant and dignity. In this form it was quite acceptable.

The HS commanded reform. The reform is not over.

Ron
 
Dauphin said:
Traditional Latin Mass sites have increased by more than 50% in german-speaking regions (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), and have more than doubled in Germany alone since Summorum Pontificum came into effect in September:

thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2008/01/development-of-tlm-celebrations-in.html

Thousands more people now have access to the Traditional Latin Mass in a region where the Church is extremely weak. The growth really is significant considering the short time frame.
Click to expand...
The Tridentine Rite will not be back. The allowance is a concession. It will remain the interest of a minority of enthusiasts. The NO will be further honed, but it won’t be replaced by the TR. Those who have the time and the zeal should get with their loacl liturgical committee instead of leaving the reform to the progressive Glory & Praise crowd.

Ron
 
AlexV said:
Ron Criss does not speak for the Church.

NOWHERE in his (frankly, ignorant) posts does he acknowledge the text of Summorum Pontificum, which does NOT speak of “obstinate” people who refuse to be “obedient” unless they somehow get their way liturgically.

Ron Criss’ posts are full of arrogance. They make the argument that a LIVING liturgy of the Church is somehow not appropriate or otherwise quite right for our times.

His views, alas, are shared by many clerics as well as laymen.

The Pope does not agree.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it is traditionalists who think they can correct the council fathers and the Holy Spirit who are arogant. Where Peter is there is the Church. Obey her!

Ron
 
stmaria said:
The Novus Ordo was invented from scratch by a handful of theologians that refused to follow the *Constitution on the Liturgy *and introduced things not called for anywhere in that Constitution.
Click to expand...
It was not.

Ron
 
Alexios said:
By the way, the readings can be chanted/said in the vernacular in the Traditional Mass. Why would you support CITH? What is the purpose behind its use, other than to subversively convince people that it’s just like a common teddy graham that can be handled in one’s dirty hands before popping it into one’s mouth.

I would really like to know why CITH was ever allowed? I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a complete explanation of that.
Click to expand...
I think CITH, like extraordinary ministers, was to expedite the process in accordance with contemporary shorter attention spans. They do accomplish this, as do many of the revisions which eliminate repetition while retaining the essentials. The purpose of the reform was to engage the laity. It has accomplished that.

Ron
 
stmaria said:
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.

For a real comparision, link to the following.
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm
Click to expand...
Uh, question. The English translation of the Norvus Ordo is one that I’ve never heard before. Is it supposed to be the translated Latin version, or is it supposed to be the new translation coming out in the next few years?
 
roncriss said:
I think CITH, like extraordinary ministers, was to expedite the process in accordance with contemporary shorter attention spans. They do accomplish this, as do many of the revisions which eliminate repetition while retaining the essentials. The purpose of the reform was to engage the laity. It has accomplished that.

Ron
Click to expand...
Communion in the hand started in 1964, without approval from Pope Paul. EMHC also started in 1964 without approval.Do you really believe that in 1964 the attention span was so great that Mass had to be shortened? That is the reason it was started? You are reaching for explainations to justify your thinking.
 
dandn5000 said:
Uh, question. The English translation of the Norvus Ordo is one that I’ve never heard before. Is it supposed to be the translated Latin version, or is it supposed to be the new translation coming out in the next few years?
Click to expand...
Are you looking at the right hand column? It is the same translation that is used, as far as I can see. Only they haven’t provided Eucharistic Prayer III and IV.

They used to be a different translation of the Order of the Mass in some English speaking countries before 1975 but this is not it.

There are a few small inaccuracies on the TLM side
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top