Do attendees of N.O. love the Mass like TLMers love the TLM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter devotus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
devotus said:
Many TLM will only attend or drive for hundreds miles to worship the Lord at a TLM Mass. I drive 45minutes one way to the TLM and I bet I must pass a ½ dozen NO parishes on the way there. Traditionalist will even push to the envelope Church Laws in not attending a NO mass is a TLM is not avail…

Do No attendees feel the same way about their Mass?

What would happen if it radically changed or as replaced?
Click to expand...
Here is the thing - I absolutely trust that any changes made by the Magisterium to the Liturgy will be guided by the Holy Spirit. As an Obedient Daughter of the Holy Mother Church I will be as faithful and supportive of my parish as I can be as long as its pastor is in communion with Rome.

I go to Mass to offer praise and worship to Our Lord and for the Eucharist. I do not go to feel good; if I used how I ‘felt’ as a criteria for action there are very few things I would do.

But what do I know? I’m a Niner Fan…
 
gospel_life said:
AJV has thankfully saved me the time of compiling a list of differences. It is just quite frankly intellectually dishonest to label a mass that was not officially codified until 1000 years later, as being the mas “OF” Gregory. It just isn’t so and to continue to claim that it is is at best misleading and at worst an intentional attempt to cause people who don’t know better to think that it came from Gregory and is 1000 years older than it is. Gregory did not create the Tridentine liturgy and to call it his just doesn’t wash.

If you want to state that a lot of the Tridentine liturgy is similar to Mass at the time of Gregory, I have no beef with you. To relabel the Tridentine liturgy as “the Mass of St. Gregory the Great” is just dishonest as it is not the case.
One has nothing to do with the other. Mass attendance around the world has plummeted, but it is for cultural and societal reasons rather than because of the occurence of Vatican II. …And if you check statistics, I’m sure they will show that the overwhelming majority would continue to attend NO masses even if the TLM were available in every parish. I refuse to argue for the superiority of either as that is a subjective preference. As I’ve said several times, the “best” is the one through which God speaks best to the individual…

And steak is inherently better for you than a peanut butter sandwich. Give me a break. Trying to use musical disparities and transfer that to a comparision of two valid liturgies of the Church again is dishonest at best, and again goes to the implication that you can judge the Tridentine liturgy to be “better” and thus your preference for it “superior”. It is not “better and better for you” as an objective fact. It is better for those to whom God speaks more clearly there. The NO is better for those to whom God speaks more clearly there.

As pnewton said
Amen brother! 👍 I refuse to argue for either as superior. The “traditions of man” just aren’t the same as the “Traditions of God”.

I’ve said all I can really say on this, and I guess if you’re going to continue to try to use your misleading term I can’t stop you. We’ll just let the people reading be the judge of whether it is accurate, or useful.
Click to expand...
Trent did not create the Tridentine liturgy. To codify it is not to create it. I agree St. Gregory did not create the liturgy, but his reworking of the liturgy was the foundation (a word AJV used) for the Mass as it came down to the time of Trent. I see your point about the use of the word “of”. Perhaps a better term would be Gregorian Mass. Nevertheless, by the use of the word “of” I am not intending to convey that the liturgy originated from and was created by St. Gregory and I would not expect people to read it that way. I merely prefer the term so that people do not get the impression that the liturgy was completely reworked or originated from the Council of Trent. It is like the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien’s son, Christopher, took some of the papers his father had written and published them in a book. One can say Christopher is the editor as he did do some work, but one can recognize that J.R.R. Tokien’s contribution was more significant.

Conversely, I don’t consider the term “Pauline Mass” or the “Mass of Paul VI” to be dishonest as the liturgy was significantly reworked under his pontificate.

While I do not discount societal causes, here is an interesting article on the record of the Novus Ordo:

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-10/lothian.html

which indicates that yes, the drop in Mass attendance did have something to do with the new liturgy.

Of course the vast majority attend Novus Ordo Masses, that is the main liturgy of the Church.

As far as the Mass of St. Gregory being better, that is a debate that has been going on for some years now involving people such as Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Ottaviani, Dom Alcuin Reid, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Dr. William Marra, Fr. Brian Harrison, Ignatius Press, Fr. Aidan Nichols, etc. It is not logical that with two liturgies with significant differences one cannot say one is better than the other. After all, people (and even the Church) argue that Gregorian chant is “better” than other forms of music for the liturgy. If it is a debate that you don’t want to engage in, then fine.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Trent did not create the Tridentine liturgy. To codify it is not to create it. I agree St. Gregory did not create the liturgy, but his reworking of the liturgy was the foundation (a word AJV used) for the Mass as it came down to the time of Trent. I see your point about the use of the word “of”. Perhaps a better term would be Gregorian Mass. Nevertheless, by the use of the word “of” I am not intending to convey that the liturgy originated from and was created by St. Gregory and I would not expect people to read it that way. I merely prefer the term so that people do not get the impression that the liturgy was completely reworked or originated from the Council of Trent. It is like the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien’s son, Christopher, took some of the papers his father had written and published them in a book. One can say Christopher is the editor as he did do some work, but one can recognize that J.R.R. Tokien’s contribution was more significant.

Conversely, I don’t consider the term “Pauline Mass” or the “Mass of Paul VI” to be dishonest as the liturgy was significantly reworked under his pontificate.

While I do not discount societal causes, here is an interesting article on the record of the Novus Ordo:

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-10/lothian.html

which indicates that yes, the drop in Mass attendance did have something to do with the new liturgy.

Of course the vast majority attend Novus Ordo Masses, that is the main liturgy of the Church.

As far as the Mass of St. Gregory being better, that is a debate that has been going on for some years now involving people such as Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Ottaviani, Dom Alcuin Reid, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Dr. William Marra, Fr. Brian Harrison, Ignatius Press, Fr. Aidan Nichols, etc. It is not logical that with two liturgies with significant differences one cannot say one is better than the other. After all, people (and even the Church) argue that Gregorian chant is “better” than other forms of music for the liturgy. If it is a debate that you don’t want to engage in, then fine.
Click to expand...
We had this debate going in this other thread before. Here is the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=135173

My question is why does the data seem to show a decline that starts in 1957 and steadily progresses through 1995 or so. And then what caused attendance %'s to level off in the mid-90’s through to today?

I would also question the tendency of Protestants to self-identify themselves when they no longer attend or participate in services whereas Catholics (because of the power of Truth?) continue to identify themselves as such even when they no longer practice. Hence the term non-practicing Catholic. You don’t hear about non-practicing Evangelicals or Methodists. This would agree with the statistics that show declines in many of the Protestant population total numbers while the Catholic population continues to increase year over year.

It’s interesting to note that Catholic parishes that celebrate a reverent and orthodox NO have very large attendance and people driving from all over to join and attend. Just like the wondeful indult Masses that draw people to the devout liturgy. It seems that an orthodox liturgy (whether in the vernacular or in Latin, whether the old Mass or the current Mass) is what attracts attendance and stimulates faithfulness.
 
Ham1 said:
We had this debate going in this other thread before. Here is the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=135173

My question is why does the data seem to show a decline that starts in 1957 and steadily progresses through 1995 or so. And then what caused attendance %'s to level off in the mid-90’s through to today?

I would also question the tendency of Protestants to self-identify themselves when they no longer attend or participate in services whereas Catholics (because of the power of Truth?) continue to identify themselves as such even when they no longer practice. Hence the term non-practicing Catholic. You don’t hear about non-practicing Evangelicals or Methodists. This would agree with the statistics that show declines in many of the Protestant population total numbers while the Catholic population continues to increase year over year.

It’s interesting to note that Catholic parishes that celebrate a reverent and orthodox NO have very large attendance and people driving from all over to join and attend. Just like the wondeful indult Masses that draw people to the devout liturgy. It seems that an orthodox liturgy (whether in the vernacular or in Latin, whether the old Mass or the current Mass) is what attracts attendance and stimulates faithfulness.
Click to expand...
Okay Ham1, I will put the question back to you then. What did happen in 1957 that caused a decline that went through to the 1970’s and beyond?

Naturally, the way I was looking at your graph, I saw a slight dip in 1957 followed by an uptick and leveling off from 1962-1965, then a consistent and strong downtown from 1965-1975. So I don’t think anything significant happened in 1957. However, I would be interested to know if you have any ideas of what might have occurred in 1957 to cause such a drastic downfall in Mass attendance.
 
However, I would be interested to know if you have any ideas of what might have occurred in 1957 to cause such a drastic downfall in Mass attendance.
Click to expand...
The 1960s!

Again, we’re just going to get into the “which came first” argument again. It just seems utterly impossible to say that our culture hadn’t been under pressure of collapse long before Vatican II. You’re going to say that Vatican II facilitated it and I’m going to say that the world situation did it. I rather think this will be sorted out when we die.
 
bear06 said:
The 1960s!

Again, we’re just going to get into the “which came first” argument again. It just seems utterly impossible to say that our culture hadn’t been under pressure of collapse long before Vatican II. You’re going to say that Vatican II facilitated it and I’m going to say that the world situation did it. I rather think this will be sorted out when we die.
Click to expand...
I would primarily (but not only) blame the collapse in Mass attendance on the changes to the liturgy. The article I linked above makes a similar argument.

I would agree, however, that certain modernist ideas one can trace back to the enlightenment (and some perhaps farther than that) became more open in the 1960’s though they existed before that.

I am reading “The Mass and Modernity” by Fr. Jonathan Robinson (Ignatius Press) which seems as it will talk about modernism and how we cannot accept its mind-set in regards to the liturgy.

God bless.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Okay Ham1, I will put the question back to you then. What did happen in 1957 that caused a decline that went through to the 1970’s and beyond?

Naturally, the way I was looking at your graph, I saw a slight dip in 1957 followed by an uptick and leveling off from 1962-1965, then a consistent and strong downtown from 1965-1975. So I don’t think anything significant happened in 1957. However, I would be interested to know if you have any ideas of what might have occurred in 1957 to cause such a drastic downfall in Mass attendance.
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head, I would say the growth of prosperity and materialism in the US - the full effects of the post WWII economic boom. When people are in turmoil they go to Church. When things are rich and easy, they tend not to go as much.
 
I grew up in the Tridentine Mass. I was an altar boy and learned the Latin responses. I read the Mass from the St. Joseph’s Daily Missal when I attended Mass each morning before school at my parish elementary school. I still have many of the old prayers from the missal memorized, although not usually in Latin. I find that being able to pray from both traditions is helpful to my spirituality. I’m not about to drive a great distance to find a Latin Mass. The new mass in the vernacular (which, incidentally uses prayers that are older that some found in the Tridentine Mass) is fine with me. I’m there for God, not the surroundings.
As for the singing at Mass, I find that few people realize that a lot of plane chant from the Gregorian period has fallen into disuse in favor of a few exceptionally good Masses. It will happen with the music we’re using now as well. It takes time to weed the better work from the mediocre and the poor. We are always in too much of a hurry to get to the end of the process. We want it now. I had the joy of being in Detroit when T. Kuras (spelling?) was organist at the cathedral. He wrote a really beautiful and singable plane chant mass for the parish. I am sorry to say that I heard it performed only at Blessed Sacrament in Detroit and nowhere else in the archdiocese or in any diocese in which I have resided since. There is good music out there, we need to go find it and make it our own.
Yes, I love the new mass. No, I don’t need to go back to a mass that no one understood in order to feel close to God. It seems to smack of spiritual elitism when I hear people say they don’t feel they have been to mass unless it is in Latin.
In the Father’s Love,
Matthew
 
Ham1 said:
Off the top of my head, I would say the growth of prosperity and materialism in the US - the full effects of the post WWII economic boom. When people are in turmoil they go to Church. When things are rich and easy, they tend not to go as much.
Click to expand...
I have to generally agree with you. I would just add that many also want their faith to be a little difficult. By that I mean many of us don’t find easy tasks to be as satisfying as those that are more difficult. In the 50s the Church started to ease on some of the disciplines such as the fast before Communion. While more frequent Holy Communion is a worthwhile goal, and we gain the Graces it bestows, some of the mystique, if you will, was lost. In a earlier post I think I alluded to the fact that the fundamental Protestant churches were growing as the mainstream Protestant churches were declining. I would blame the downplaying of sin by the mainstream, while the fundamentalists were telling their flocks that they were sinners who needed to do better.

Just my :twocents: if you don’t mind.
 
Ham1 said:
Off the top of my head, I would say the growth of prosperity and materialism in the US - the full effects of the post WWII economic boom. When people are in turmoil they go to Church. When things are rich and easy, they tend not to go as much.
Click to expand...
I won’t disagree that when a nation gets wealthy they can become more lax in their religious observance in general.

I would look at it in the terms of remote and proximate causes. I would look at what was happening in society as a remote cause, while the changes to the liturgy are more of a direct cause as they affected all Catholics in a very direct way.

Of course, you and I are reading that graph differently anyway.

Thanks for your response. God bless.
 
Just wanted to add my 2 cents…I love the TLM, not anything to do with Latin, but because of other things. I love the focus on God because of the ad orientem position of the priest. He is leading our prayers to Him, and we are all facing Him in supplication. I love the words spoken during the Mass. If it were said in English, or in the vernacular of the land, that would be even better, that all could appreciate the beauty of the prayers. I love the incense and the reverential approach to the altar. I love kneeling to receive Holy Communion, and the little time of waiting to receive His precious Body as the priest makes his way along the altar rail. I love being able to pause, on my knees, upon receiving the Eucharist, and immediately reflect and ponder the gift that I have just received, instead of having to immediately march back to my pew, getting out of the way of the person in line to receive behind me. I love that the Mass isn’t promptly ended right after Communion, there is a respect shown to God by remaining in His house for just a little while longer, all together. In contrast, I am weary of having to gaze at my fellow parishioners all through the Mass, and seeing them gaze back at me from the other side of the altar in our circular church. I don’t like seeing altar boys with dirty tennis shoes and ill-fitting cassocks. I like to kneel during the consecration, some churches I have attended don’t have kneelers anymore. I knelt on the floor, but couldn’t see a thing because everyone else was standing. For women to wear a veil, well, I grew up in a country that is/was very Catholic, and to wear a veil then was a joy in expressing the gift of femininity the Lord gave us. The Sign of Peace if laudable if it is given, but many times people don’t turn around to offer it anymore. One is left wondering how one has offended. When you hear Gregorian Chant, how can anything else compare to its beauty and simplicity? I like the TLM because it seems more reverence is shown to our Lord. The Lord is gracious to come to us wherever we are and bring us up to where He is. The Mass, TLM or NO, is His gift to us of His Presence in the Eucharist. I just think the TLM causes us to focus more on Him and the reverence due to Him, than on each other.
 
I love the Mass/Divine Liturgy under all approved rites of the Church–it is truly Heaven on earth. I would drive as far as necessary to attend Mass–although, at a certain point, I would just move closer.🙂
 
I have just started attending a TLM Mass and I love it and the NO also. They both have special places in my heart and I attend them on alternating days although the TLM is across town and the NO is minutes away.

I guess I am lucky that my parish where I am registered “goes by the book” if you will and so I don’t have the strange stories I have seen posted here (except for that darn tambourine…LOL):rolleyes: …so I feel I have the best of both worlds.

:heart:Blyss
 
IrishCathy said:
Just wanted to add my 2 cents…I love the TLM, not anything to do with Latin, but because of other things. I love the focus on God because of the ad orientem position of the priest. He is leading our prayers to Him, and we are all facing Him in supplication. I love the words spoken during the Mass. If it were said in English, or in the vernacular of the land, that would be even better, that all could appreciate the beauty of the prayers. I love the incense and the reverential approach to the altar. I love kneeling to receive Holy Communion, and the little time of waiting to receive His precious Body as the priest makes his way along the altar rail. I love being able to pause, on my knees, upon receiving the Eucharist, and immediately reflect and ponder the gift that I have just received, instead of having to immediately march back to my pew, getting out of the way of the person in line to receive behind me. I love that the Mass isn’t promptly ended right after Communion, there is a respect shown to God by remaining in His house for just a little while longer, all together. In contrast, I am weary of having to gaze at my fellow parishioners all through the Mass, and seeing them gaze back at me from the other side of the altar in our circular church. I don’t like seeing altar boys with dirty tennis shoes and ill-fitting cassocks. I like to kneel during the consecration, some churches I have attended don’t have kneelers anymore. I knelt on the floor, but couldn’t see a thing because everyone else was standing. For women to wear a veil, well, I grew up in a country that is/was very Catholic, and to wear a veil then was a joy in expressing the gift of femininity the Lord gave us. The Sign of Peace if laudable if it is given, but many times people don’t turn around to offer it anymore. One is left wondering how one has offended. When you hear Gregorian Chant, how can anything else compare to its beauty and simplicity? I like the TLM because it seems more reverence is shown to our Lord. The Lord is gracious to come to us wherever we are and bring us up to where He is. The Mass, TLM or NO, is His gift to us of His Presence in the Eucharist. I just think the TLM causes us to focus more on Him and the reverence due to Him, than on each other.
Click to expand...
Everything you’ve stated you like can happen in the TLM. In fact, there are a few places around the country that have Masses that contain all of those right down to the incense. Hopefully more will be lucky as we are!
 
bear06 said:
Everything you’ve stated you like can happen in the TLM. In fact, there are a few places around the country that have Masses that contain all of those right down to the incense. Hopefully more will be lucky as we are!
Click to expand...
Do you mean “can happen in the TLM” or do you mean, ‘can happen in the NO?’ Sorry, I don’t understand.:confused: 🙂
 
IrishCathy said:
Do you mean “can happen in the TLM” or do you mean, ‘can happen in the NO?’ Sorry, I don’t understand.:confused: 🙂
Click to expand...
Sorry! You’ve got it right and I’ve got my Masses confused! It can happen at a Novus Ordo and increasingly, it is! We have chant, Asperges, incense, etc.
 
You are blessed then! However, still can’t kneel and remain at the altar rail during Communion, or have the whole congregation face the altar rather than each other [in round churches anyway]. It’s just that I see in many NO churches an emphasis on having a fun time/get together mentality that focuses on each other rather than a community focusing together on God. We have all week to enjoy each other, even in religious oriented activities, but only the Mass to worship and adore God togeher. This is what I mean. Thanks for the quick reply bear!
 
"Do attendees of N.O. love the Mass like TLMers love the TLM? "

I think it’s safe to say that the devout folks who attend the weekday N.O. Masses love the Mass.
Also, I do think the majority of those at Sunday Mass want to be there.

Anyhow, TLM or NO, the ones who truly love the Mass will attend weekday mass as well as Sunday Mass.
I know there are those who can’t attend weekday Mass for various reasons, and I’m not saying those who don’t attend weekday Mass are not devout Catholics.

I’m very fortunate. The N.O. Masses I attend are said by one of six Dominican Friars. All say it with reverence, and each has his own style of giving a Homily. At the noon weekday Mass, as many as four of our Friars assist the Celebrant.

So yes, I love the N.O… at my parish 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top