Divine worship and the rise of ‘feel-good liturgy’

[Brennan_Doherty]

I have seen the reasons for travelling long distances to attend a TLM couched in many ways, but the bottom line is that it IS about how it makes the attendee feel toward/about their faith.

No, it isn’t. Read any works by von Hildebrand, Fr. Parsons, Martin Mosebach etc. advocating the TLM and it is plain they don’t argue on the basis of subjective feelings.

I would also dare say that most anyone who makes an extra effort to attend the TLM can elucidate reasons for doing so that have nothing to do with how it makes them feel.

 

[ethelzguy]

I believe the NO is valid. I don’t believe it portrays the Catholic Faith with the strength of the TLM or that it is an organic development of the liturgy. This is not a schismatic stance. Catholics are not required to believe that prudential decisions of the Pope (such as releasing a new liturgy) are automatically wise and prudent.

So, it is your position that Paul VI was neither wise, nor prudent?

 

[credo]

I’ve noticed that if I don’t hold hands with the people next to me during the Our Father, they seem offended when it comes time to shake hands. Holding hands with strangers is so uncomfortable. Men don’t hold hands. A lone man and woman, standing next to each other as strangers, will also find it very uncomfortable to suddenly hold hands. I wish we could get rid of that practice.

We do not hold hands during the Pater Noster or shake hands during the sign of peace at an EF Mass. Try to go to one if you can.

credo

 

[Rosewith]

I believe the NO is valid. I don’t believe it portrays the Catholic Faith with the strength of the TLM or that it is an organic development of the liturgy. This is not a schismatic stance. Catholics are not required to believe that prudential decisions of the Pope (such as releasing a new liturgy) are automatically wise and prudent.

I find that the *ordinary rite *expresses the Faith more validly. And so does most of the Church. If you need to have the Trid rite to feel better, I don’t grudge you, but why must the pro-Trids be so hostile and abrasive? This is what puts me off the whole alternate rite thing. Why do you feel you need to make your case with caricature and mockery? It is, after all, the official Eucharistic rite of the Church you claim as your own.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

So, it is your position that Paul VI was neither wise, nor prudent?

In strictly speaking of the NO (and not Pope Paul VI in general), no I do not believe it was wise or prudent to release a Mass that had been concocted in a committee headed by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I find that the *ordinary rite *expresses the Faith more validly. And so does most of the Church. If you need to have the Trid rite to feel better, I don’t grudge you, but why must the pro-Trids be so hostile and abrasive? This is what puts me off the whole alternate rite thing. Why do you feel you need to make your case with caricature and mockery? It is, after all, the official Eucharistic rite of the Church you claim as your own.

First, I have never in any of my posts advocated the TLM because it makes me “feel better.” If you wish, read the article by Dietrich von Hildebrand in my signature line and you’ll get a good idea that he certainly does not do so either.

That you find that the NO expresses the faith more validly is certainly a stance that is acceptable for any Catholic to have. As to why you believe that, well, the reasons would be interesting to hear. As to most of the Church also believing that, well, I think most Catholics don’t think about the liturgy a whole lot to have an opinion one way or the other (and many have probably never attended a TLM).

And where, in my last post (or any of my posts) have I made my case with “caricature and mockery”? Or have been hostile and abrasive? And certainly none of the others I recommend (such as Dietrich von Hildebrand) who write concerning the TLM are that way.

 

[Auntie_M]

We do not hold hands during the Pater Noster or shake hands during the sign of peace at an EF Mass. Try to go to one if you can.

credo

You know, I am really distraught over this…What is soooo wrong with holding hands, even with strangers.

Most people who are in love, to show love, hold each others’ hands.

So, in our church, holding hands is like showing that person that I am not offended that you are next to me or that I want to ignore you, I want to show you the love that Christ taught us to have. I am giving of myself in such a small way to show that other person, whomever he may be, That I am trying to LIVE the commandements…Love thy neighbor as thyself. You never know what that one Little sign to another might mean to them. To know and feel that they are loved.

I am reminded of a story I heard a long time ago. A man who was on the verge of suicide walked into a church (don’t remember which one) to “say his last prayer”. After the service, He was approached by someone before he left. That someone took his hand in a very warm handshake, welcomed him there and expressed that he was glad to see him and hoped that he return.

This man left, and returned to church every Sunday thereafter.

A little love, just as Therese, the little flower, in her little way showed love with a bounty of roses falling from heaven.

So, please someone tell me, what is wrong with showing a little love for our neighbor?

I honestly believe that Jesus would prefer us to show others love just as He did. He knows WHY we came to church to love, honor and worship Him. But just as HE gave of himself on Calvary for all of us, we need to give of ourselves to others too. That is one way St. Francis talked about evangelizing, and use words IF necessary. It is NOT necessary to use words while holding hands, it’s a commonly accepted act of love.

So, Please tell me why it is wrong…

 

[Auntie_M]

In strictly speaking of the NO (and not Pope Paul VI in general), no I do not believe it was wise or prudent to release a Mass that had been concocted in a committee headed by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini.

Surprise Brennan

I have to agree with you Brennan that Bugnini was of questionable character. There were others there of the same character such as Marcel Lefebvre and also Achille Leinart (who ordained Lefebvre). Both Leinart and Bugnini was suspected of being masons.

But, as I understand it, Our Pope had the final say on this. I do believe that he would NOT have released anything detremental as he was relying on the Holy Spirit. Still, Satan does have a very conniving way of twisting things to suit him. But God is still in charge…

Our church has been fought against literally since day one. Every conceivble action…But, she is still here…

Even miracles such as US agreeing on anything still happens:hug1:

 

[Auntie_M]

I find that the *ordinary rite *expresses the Faith more validly. And so does most of the Church. If you need to have the Trid rite to feel better, I don’t grudge you, but why must the pro-Trids be so hostile and abrasive? This is what puts me off the whole alternate rite thing. Why do you feel you need to make your case with caricature and mockery? It is, after all, the official Eucharistic rite of the Church you claim as your own.

Rosewith

I have to agree with you that there is alot of hostility out there coming from some of the Traditionalists. I can only assume that they feel very lonely and perhaps “left behind”. As some are even excommunicated and I really think there is where all the hostility arises from. These people have alot of propanganda on the net. It really does hurt our church, with all the division.:crying:

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Surprise Brennan

I have to agree with you Brennan that Bugnini was of questionable character. There were others there of the same character such as Marcel Lefebvre and also Achille Leinart (who ordained Lefebvre). Both Leinart and Bugnini was suspected of being masons.

But, as I understand it, Our Pope had the final say on this. I do believe that he would NOT have released anything detremental as he was relying on the Holy Spirit. Still, Satan does have a very conniving way of twisting things to suit him. But God is still in charge…

Our church has been fought against literally since day one. Every conceivble action…But, she is still here…

Even miracles such as US agreeing on anything still happens:hug1:

Hi Auntie M,

I agree that Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, just going on his view on the liturgy alone and what he did with it, would be one of the last people I would want to head up a committee to revise the liturgy.

I do believe Pope Paul VI released a valid liturgy. However, the Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily ensure that a Pope will always make wonderful decsions in regard to the liturgy, as these are prudential, non-infallible decisions.

God bless.

 

[Auntie_M]

Hi Auntie M,

I agree that Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, just going on his view on the liturgy alone and what he did with it, would be one of the last people I would want to head up a committee to revise the liturgy.

I do believe Pope Paul VI released a valid liturgy. However, the Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily ensure that a Pope will always make wonderful decsions in regard to the liturgy, as these are prudential, non-infallible decisions.

God bless.

I agree also, that the Holy Spirit doesn’t “ensure” wonderful decisions, as people, Popes included, don’t always heed the Spirit’s lead. The old adage…“You can take a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” (No disrespect intended)

(Wow, two in a row) We may end up pallies after all.:yup:

 

[Auntie_M]

I have seen the reasons for travelling long distances to attend a TLM couched in many ways, but the bottom line is that it IS about how it makes the attendee feel toward/about their faith.

Ethelzguy
(your name isn’t Fred is it, if so, how’s Lucy and Desi)

I have to also agree, that alot of the TLM is how is makes you feel.
I have heard soooo many say that it “feels” more reverent. And “to them”, I think it really is how they see it.

When something/anything makes you “feel” more reverent, by all means go. That’s what worshipping is all about, isn’t it? But if the NO makes others feel as “reverent” also, I do wish these people would not toss out words like the “evil” Novus Ordo, or the “Modernist” , or the “New Church”, Right Ethelzguy? That, to me, isn’t very Christ like.

She is the same yesterday, today and forever.
I do wish we could get people to understand this, don’t you?:yup:

It is really nice to talk with you, it seems we are on the same plane, going the same speed and the same direction.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I agree also, that the Holy Spirit doesn’t “ensure” wonderful decisions, as people, Popes included, don’t always heed the Spirit’s lead. The old adage…“You can take a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” (No disrespect intended)

(Wow, two in a row) We may end up pallies after all.:yup:

Yes, I am amazed.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

When something/anything makes you “feel” more reverent, by all means go. That’s what worshipping is all about, isn’t it?

Worshiping is not “all about” feeling “more reverent”. Holy Mass is a sacrifice offered to God. It’s not wrong for good feelings to be excited, but that’s certainly not the principal reason for worship. I hope that’s not what you actually meant to say.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ethelzguy
(your name isn’t Fred is it, if so, how’s Lucy and Desi)

I have to also agree, that alot of the TLM is how is makes you feel.
I have heard soooo many say that it “feels” more reverent. And “to them”, I think it really is how they see it.

When something/anything makes you “feel” more reverent, by all means go. That’s what worshipping is all about, isn’t it? But if the NO makes others feel as “reverent” also, I do wish these people would not toss out words like the “evil” Novus Ordo, or the “Modernist” , or the “New Church”, Right Ethelzguy? That, to me, isn’t very Christ like.

She is the same yesterday, today and forever.
I do wish we could get people to understand this, don’t you?:yup:

It is really nice to talk with you, it seems we are on the same plane, going the same speed and the same direction.

Just to make sure it isn’t three in a row…

I actually agree that the NO is valid so should not be called evil.

However, the arguments for the TLM go far beyond (and don’t really touch on) how it makes people “feel.” Granted, we probably have not read some of the same authors, but I can assure you that those authors who advocate for the TLM don’t base their arguments on how it makes people “feel.” And I would say the same for many of the posters here. It is about which liturgy most strongly presents the Catholic faith and helps lift our hearts and minds to God.

For example, here is a snippet from Dietrich von Hildebrand’s article “The Case for the Latin Mass” on exactly the subject you mention, reverence:

"I should like to put to those who are fostering this development several questions: Does the new mass, more than the old, bestir the human spirit – does it evoke a sense of eternity? Does it help raise our hearts from the concerns of everyday life – from the purely natural aspects of the world- to Christ? Does it increase reverence, an appreciation of the sacred?

Of course these questions are rhetorical, and self-answering. I raise them because I think that all thoughtful Christians will want to weigh their importance before coming to a conclusion about the merits of the new liturgy. What is the role of reverence in a truly Christian life, and above all in a truly Christian worship of God?

Reverence gives being the opportunity to speak to us: The ultimate grandeur of man is to be capax Dei. Reverence is of capital importance to all the fundamental domains of man’s life. It can be rightly called “the mother of all virtues,” for it is the basic attitude that all virtues presuppose. The most elementary gesture of reverence is a response to being itself. It distinguishes the autonomous majesty of being from mere illusion or fiction; it is a recognition of the inner consistency and positiveness of being-of its independence of our arbitrary moods."

latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

I think it’s safe to say that this type of argument is a step above “Gee, I really like the TLM because it makes me feel more reverent.”

And notice his last sentence which states that reverence is actually independent of our arbitrary moods. In other words, if something is worthy, you reverence it whether you feel like it or not.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

It is really nice to talk with you, it seems we are on the same plane, going the same speed and the same direction.

Said one lemming to the other.

I don’t mean to imply anything about you personally, but it was there and I had to take it.

 

[Auntie_M]

Said one lemming to the other.

I don’t mean to imply anything about you personally, but it was there and I had to take it.

Sorry, dear, but I don’t follow your train of thought??? Please explain what a “lemming” is. don’t recall ever hearing that word.

But I was actually talking to another poster, you weren’t interrupting, were you?

 

[Auntie_M]

Just to make sure it isn’t three in a row…

I actually agree that the NO is valid so should not be called evil.

However, the arguments for the TLM go far beyond (and don’t really touch on) how it makes people “feel.” Granted, we probably have not read some of the same authors, but I can assure you that those authors who advocate for the TLM don’t base their arguments on how it makes people “feel.” And I would say the same for many of the posters here. It is about which liturgy most strongly presents the Catholic faith and helps lift our hearts and minds to God.

For example, here is a snippet from Dietrich von Hildebrand’s article “The Case for the Latin Mass” on exactly the subject you mention, reverence:

**"I should like to put to those who are fostering this development several questions: Does the new mass, more than the old, bestir the human spirit – does it evoke a sense of eternity? Does it help raise our hearts from the concerns of everyday life – from the purely natural aspects of the world- to Christ? Does it increase reverence, an appreciation of the sacred? **

Of course these questions are rhetorical, and self-answering. I raise them because I think that all thoughtful Christians will want to weigh their importance before coming to a conclusion about the merits of the new liturgy. What is the role of reverence in a truly Christian life, and above all in a truly Christian worship of God?

Reverence gives being the opportunity to speak to us: The ultimate grandeur of man is to be capax Dei. Reverence is of capital importance to all the fundamental domains of man’s life. It can be rightly called “the mother of all virtues,” for it is the basic attitude that all virtues presuppose. The most elementary gesture of reverence is a response to being itself. It distinguishes the autonomous majesty of being from mere illusion or fiction; it is a recognition of the inner consistency and positiveness of being-of its independence of our arbitrary moods."

latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

I think it’s safe to say that this type of argument is a step above “Gee, I really like the TLM because it makes me feel more reverent.”

And notice his last sentence which states that reverence is actually independent of our arbitrary moods. In other words, if something is worthy, you reverence it whether you feel like it or not.

Sorry, Dear (here we go again) But I have heard it said in the way I quoted a whole lot more than the way Van Hildebrand says it.
The part I have highlighted, (and maybe I am reading it wrong) but seems to me to be saying the same thing. It’s HOW it makes YOU feel.(in essence, he is asking how the new mass makes you feel)

You are in control of your feelings, you don’t need “something” to make you “feel”. You CAN “feel” reverence just looking at God’s creation, the ocean, the waterfall, the flowers, trees. etc.
It is a state of being that YOU choose. You don’t NEED something to MAKE you feel that way. God’s glory is sufficient.
It is really a state of mind.

(Oh well, messed up a good score, still love ya, anyway)

 

[ethelzguy]

Worshiping is not “all about” feeling “more reverent”. Holy Mass is a sacrifice offered to God. It’s not wrong for good feelings to be excited, but that’s certainly not the principal reason for worship. I hope that’s not what you actually meant to say.

Then, how do you explain those who violently reject the OF in favor of driving long distances to attend an EF? Obviously the EF gives them some “feeling” that the OF does not?

Mass is a sacrifice offered to God, regardless of the form.

 

[ethelzguy]

Said one lemming to the other.

What do rodents have to do with the liturgy?