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

[maggieodae]

I did not intend my post to sound condescending. I agree that there are people, perhaps because of unfamiliarity with the Mass of St. Gregory the Great (more on that later) who will choose to attend the Novus Ordo.

I know the Mass of St Gregory quite well…thank you very much. Some of us have been around the block more than a few times.

I see you quote a lot of Michael Davies. Another reason not to get too flapped if it’s that goofball.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I know the Mass of St Gregory quite well…thank you very much. Some of us have been around the block more than a few times.

I see you quote a lot of Michael Davies. Another reason not to get too flapped if it’s that goofball.

The quotes were from Fr. Adrian Fortescue, not Michael Davies (they were merely quoted by him).

By the way, I’d be curious to know how and/or why, assuming you’ve read some of his books and/or listened to some of his lectures, that you came to the conclusion that not only did you disagree with Michael Davies but ascertained that he is a “goofball?”

 

[Uxor]

I think you could also find plenty of people who go to a TLM and walk out completely unmoved and perhaps turned off by the Latin, by the ad orientem posture of the priest, by such incomprehensible details as the readings being done in Latin and occasionally not in the vernacular at all, by the almost complete lack of any sort of visible participation by the congregation (in some TLM masses)
.

I attend the TLM, I participate and I pray the Mass the along with the Priest.
I don’t know how anyone could walk out unmoved because of all the santicfying grace you receive. Even if you don’t know the Latin God will set it in your soul to understand. If anyone is turned off, which I can’t imagine, it is Moses and the Holies of Holies to me, they don’t understand the Mass nor what is taking place on the Altar.

 

[Grace_Angel]

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?

Last week I went to a TLM. Ok.
Normally I attend NO Mass, and when a Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated well it transports us to heaven. Where there are liturgical abuses its disturbing, but when the sacrifice is offered reverently, well, with devotion by priest and laity, then we have heaven and earth united. I love the Novus Ordo.
GraceAngel.

 

[gospel_life]

I agree that there are people, perhaps because of unfamiliarity with the Mass of St. Gregory the Great (more on that later) who will choose to attend the Novus Ordo.I’m not sure what you’re agreeing with as I totally disagree with that statement. All statistics I have seen, which agree with my experience with talking with people, is that it is not a lack of familiarity with the Tridentine liturgy that keep people from it. It is expressly because they have no interest in going to a Mass where they can’t understand what is being said.

I do maintain that there is still a lack of choice among Catholics in that, even where the Old Mass is offered, quite often it is scheduled at an out of the way place at an inconvenient time (as is the case where I live).

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’m not sure what you’re agreeing with as I totally disagree with that statement. All statistics I have seen, which agree with my experience with talking with people, is that it is not a lack of familiarity with the Tridentine liturgy that keep people from it. It is expressly because they have no interest in going to a Mass where they can’t understand what is being said. And again, I’ll say that it isn’t because of lack of offering but exactly the opposite. It isn’t offered much because the bulk of people have no interest in it. …

Can you point me to the statistics you are referring to?

About the desirability of the Mass of St. Gregory the Great Karl Keating makes the same point about times and locations in one of his e-letters here (this is just part of what he said):

“I always have found claims about the lack of “demand” to be disingenuous. They have a Catch-22 flavor to them.

Take my local situation. Who wants to attend Mass at an inconveniently-located cemetery chapel where the folding chairs are uncomfortable and the restrooms inadequate? In such a place there is no opportunity for regular parish life: no parish hall, no school, no rectory. The priests drive in from out of town and are not available during the week. There is little chance for “community.”

Despite these drawbacks, I’m told that at the cemetery Mass there is standing room only.

In other parts of the country analogous conditions prevail. The sole Latin Mass may be at a parish–but in the most decrepit part of town, where drive-by shootings are more common than the pealing of church bells. Many of the little old ladies who are supposedly the only ones interested in the old Mass will stay away, and who can blame them? The result is a small congregation and thus no “demand.”

Or, if the Mass is shifted each week to a different parish, no adequate public announcement is made. The regulars may know where to go week to week, but what about potential new attendees? How would they learn the schedule? When there is no evident growth in the size of the peripatetic congregation, there is said to be no “demand” for the old Mass.

Most important is the lack of experience on the part of most Catholics. They might well end up preferring the solemnity of the old rite–if they ever had a chance to try it. But all they know, if they are younger than about fifty, is that the Mass used to be in Latin–but they have no recollection of it.

That knowledge is too abstract to get them off their duffs for a drive across town to the one Latin Mass that is available to people in their area. They never have attended such a Mass and so cannot know whether they would like it and profit from it. Naturally, from them one can expect no “demand.””

http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_050920.asp

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

…With all due respect, unless there is more information than you’re quoting there, what you quoted makes no such attribution. In all of my study of liturgy and Church history, I have never heard anyone try to claim that the liturgy at the time of Gregory would much resemble the Tridentine liturgy. Yes, the texts might have been reasonably similar, but I have seen no indication that much else was.

I’m sure it’s an attractive idea to try to tie the Tridentine liturgy back to 1000 years earlier so it can be implied that there is 1400 years of tradition instead of 400, but it just doesn’t wash.

I quoted Fr. Adrian Fortescue in regards to the liturgy because he is an acknowledged expert on it. Enough of an expert that the Catholic Encyclopedia commissioned him to write articles on the liturgy for them. Here is an example of one of his articles:

newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm

The Council of Trent merely codified the Mass and allowed liturgies older than 200 years old to remain intact. Thus it is perfectly acceptable to call the Tridentine Mass the Mass of St. Gregory the Great as (as Fr. Adrian Fortescue has stated):

“From roughly the time of St. Gregory [d. 604] we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.”

Regarding the canon of the Mass, Cardinal Alfons Sitckler, referring the Council of Trent, has stated:

Secondly, in the old liturgy the Canon is the center of the Mass as sacrifice. According to the testimony of the Council of Trent, the Canon traces itself back to the tradition of the apostles and was substantially complete at the time of Gregory the Great, 600.

latinmassmagazine.com/stickler.asp

 

[gospel_life]

And I would reiterate that the Tridentine liturgy is the liturgy established by Trent. It does not go back to Gregory even if there are similarities.

The only possible reason I can see to try to tie the two together, implying that the Tridentine liturgy was the work of Gregory, is to try to make its “traditions” much older than they actually are.

Unfortunately, if you want to get into a “my tradition is older than your tradition” game, you mostly lose anyway since almost nothing from the Tridentine liturgy even vaguely resembles the liturgy as celebrated by the early Church.

Even the attempt though speaks loudly of trying yet again to establish the Tridentine liturgy as “superior” in some way. The problem with that though is in trying to identify as a “traditionalist” and faithful to the Church while implying that the Church has foisted an inferior liturgy on her people and that we poor slobbering fools just don’t know any better.

I’m not sure why it is so painful to accept that people just prefer the NO Mass and the vernacular, just as they did when the language was originally changed to Latin. I can understand people being drawn to the Tridentine liturgy, just as different people are drawn to different kinds of art of music. But believing that those preferences have some inherent superiority is to idolize the form over the object of adoration. And idolizing of form and law is NOT Catholic tradition.

 

[maggieodae]

And I would reiterate that the Tridentine liturgy is the liturgy established by Trent. It does not go back to Gregory even if there are similarities.

The only possible reason I can see to try to tie the two together, implying that the Tridentine liturgy was the work of Gregory, is to try to make its “traditions” much older than they actually are.

Unfortunately, if you want to get into a “my tradition is older than your tradition” game, you mostly lose anyway since almost nothing from the Tridentine liturgy even vaguely resembles the liturgy as celebrated by the early Church.

Even the attempt though speaks loudly of trying yet again to establish the Tridentine liturgy as “superior” in some way. The problem with that though is in trying to identify as a “traditionalist” and faithful to the Church while implying that the Church has foisted an inferior liturgy on her people and that we poor slobbering fools just don’t know any better.

I’m not sure why it is so painful to accept that people just prefer the NO Mass and the vernacular, just as they did when the language was originally changed to Latin. I can understand people being drawn to the Tridentine liturgy, just as different people are drawn to different kinds of art of music. But believing that those preferences have some inherent superiority is to idolize the form over the object of adoration. And idolizing of form and law is NOT Catholic tradition.

AMEN! The Holier than thou crowd have much to answer for.

 

[LilyM]

I attend the TLM, I participate and I pray the Mass the along with the Priest.
I don’t know how anyone could walk out unmoved because of all the santicfying grace you receive. Even if you don’t know the Latin God will set it in your soul to understand. If anyone is turned off, which I can’t imagine, it is Moses and the Holies of Holies to me, they don’t understand the Mass nor what is taking place on the Altar.

The sanctifying grace one recieves from attendance at Mass isn’t some sort of cheap Vegas hypnotist’s trick whereby anyone who gets even a whiff of incense is magically transported with emotion.

Remember Luther and his armies of followers attended such Masses for decades of their lives prior to his break with Rome, as did Henry VIII (up to six times a day!) and those who supported his reforms in Englan - none of them appear to have been particularly struck with the ‘moving’ nature of the Mass, at least not to the point where they left it unchanged.

The Eucharist is moving and gives sanctifying grace, true. Same Eucharist in every rite of Mass. For me the Eucharist is made plainer and clearer (and moves me more) when I can hear the words instituting it spoken in my own mother tongue rather than Latin. Not that I do not or cannot recognise the same Eucharist and the same sanctifying grace in the TLM.

 

[AJV]

I quoted Fr. Adrian Fortescue in regards to the liturgy because he is an acknowledged expert on it. Enough of an expert that the Catholic Encyclopedia commissioned him to write articles on the liturgy for them. Here is an example of one of his articles:

newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm

The Council of Trent merely codified the Mass and allowed liturgies older than 200 years old to remain intact. Thus it is perfectly acceptable to call the Tridentine Mass the Mass of St. Gregory the Great as (as Fr. Adrian Fortescue has stated):

“From roughly the time of St. Gregory [d. 604] we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.”

Regarding the canon of the Mass, Cardinal Alfons Sitckler, referring the Council of Trent, has stated:

Secondly, in the old liturgy the Canon is the center of the Mass as sacrifice. According to the testimony of the Council of Trent, the Canon traces itself back to the tradition of the apostles and was substantially complete at the time of Gregory the Great, 600.

latinmassmagazine.com/stickler.asp

I hope I’ll be excused for posting the same thing in two threads. The parts Fr. Fortescue are referring to is, first and foremost the Canon-which is the heart of the Mass. Then the overall structure to which St. Gregory had made changes. Not individual parts and certainly not many of the prayers of the ‘Tridentine’ Mass-he would be too good a scholar to do that.

If one goes through the Tridetine Mass and compares it to the Mass of St. Gregory the Great

-No prayers at the foot of the altar-nothing upto the Introit. The prayer “Aufer a nobis” is ancient (from the Leonine Sacramentary) but there it appears in another capacity not in the Ordinary.
-Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Epistle, Gospel blessing (the action not the wording) and Gospel as in the time of St. Gregory the Great. However the collects were restricted in number, and the Kyrie may have frequently been a litany on major days and the Gloria was for the bishops only and on certain feasts. Also, all the collects do not date form that time, but the Epistles and Gospels of the Sundays however, do.
-No Creed
No Offertory prayers in whatever capacity.
-The Secret (or the Oratio Super Oblata) followed
The Canon of the Mass as it is, with the preceding prefaces (except that the prefaces were different), and the Memento for the Dead in the Canon being omitted on the greater days.
The Our Father and the embolism to which St. Gregory added the name of St. Andrew. It was said aloud, however.
Pax Domini, the triple signing (with however the Sancta a particle form the earlier Mass) as at the time of St. Gregory. However, at the time of St. Gregory, the kiss of peace comes here-in the TLM it is placed later.
The Agnus Dei was introduced a little later than St. Gregory but consider as from his time. The fraction took place during the singing.
None of the 3 prayers after the Agnus Dei. None of the communion prayers. Instead the Pope communicated, dropped another Particle into the chalice with the prayer “Haec commixtio…” (placed earlier in the TLM) and then said “Pax tecum” before communicating.
No ablution prayers.
The salutation “Dominus vobiscum” and the poastcommunion is the same
Ite Missa est.
No blessing by priest, hwoever the higher clergy blessed the people as they went out.
No Placeat or Last Gospel.

Mr. Davies himself was usually careful in quoting sources, however sometimes his sources were slightly dated and at fault. E.g. the statement also found at the link you provided that says that St. Pius X only made a reform of the Gradual music. The quote is accurate but at the time when that book was written, St. Pius X had only made a reform in the gradual music but later he made others in rankings, etc. which Fr. Fortescue did not fail to note but that was later in an addenum to the book.

I just wanted to point out somethign that was slightly funny thoguh unrelated to the discussion. He quotes the Letter from the Catholic bishops to the Anglicans at the time of the controversy over Orders with regard to drastic changes. While the comment is quite valid regarding the missal of 1970, it is funny because in a retort some years later, the Anglicans (like Dr. J. Legg) hit back at that particular passage by pointing to the breviary rearrangement of St. Pius X.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

And I would reiterate that the Tridentine liturgy is the liturgy established by Trent. It does not go back to Gregory even if there are similarities.

The only possible reason I can see to try to tie the two together, implying that the Tridentine liturgy was the work of Gregory, is to try to make its “traditions” much older than they actually are.

Unfortunately, if you want to get into a “my tradition is older than your tradition” game, you mostly lose anyway since almost nothing from the Tridentine liturgy even vaguely resembles the liturgy as celebrated by the early Church.

Even the attempt though speaks loudly of trying yet again to establish the Tridentine liturgy as “superior” in some way. The problem with that though is in trying to identify as a “traditionalist” and faithful to the Church while implying that the Church has foisted an inferior liturgy on her people and that we poor slobbering fools just don’t know any better.

I’m not sure why it is so painful to accept that people just prefer the NO Mass and the vernacular, just as they did when the language was originally changed to Latin. I can understand people being drawn to the Tridentine liturgy, just as different people are drawn to different kinds of art of music. But believing that those preferences have some inherent superiority is to idolize the form over the object of adoration. And idolizing of form and law is NOT Catholic tradition.

Can you back up anything you say with any actual quotes from people who are recognized experts in liturgical matters? Can you make an argument for your assertion that the Tridentine Mass does not go back to the time of St. Gregory the Great?

Basically you are asserting yourself as more of an expert on the liturgy and its ties to the Mass of St. Gregory the Great than Fr. Adrian Fortescue who studied the liturgy his entire life. How is it that Fr. Fortescue was so mistaken in asserting that the Tridentine Mass does go back to the time of St. Gregory and was not changed in any important details?

How do you know that the Tridentine Mass does not even “vaguely resemble” the Mass of the early Church? Do you have a missal from that time period?

As far as people perferring the NO Mass and the venacular, then why did Mass attendance plummet after Vatican II and the changes to the Mass? Shouldn’t Mass attendance have increased if the changes were so popular?

Didn’t Sancrosanctum Concilium intend for the changes to the liturgy to improve the liturgy? And thus shouldn’t you be arguing for the superiority of the Novus Ordo over the Mass of St. Gregory the Great?

I have not used language like “poor slobbering fools.” There has been a very rational discussion concerning the Mass of St. Gregory the Great and the Novus Ordo for some time now. If you have not I would suggest reading my signature link below for an example. Or the Ottaviani Intervention. Or “Reform of the Reform?” pubished by Igantius Press.

To state, for instance, that the music of Mozart is better (and better for you) than that of Britney Spears is not an idolization of form. It is a rational assessment which can also be done in regards to the liturgy.

 

[AJV]

Can you back up anything you say with any actual quotes from people who are recognized experts in liturgical matters? Can you make an argument for your assertion that the Tridentine Mass does not go back to the time of St. Gregory the Great?

Basically you are asserting yourself as more of an expert on the liturgy and its ties to the Mass of St. Gregory the Great than Fr. Adrian Fortescue who studied the liturgy his entire life. How is it that Fr. Fortescue was so mistaken in asserting that the Tridentine Mass does go back to the time of St. Gregory and was not changed in any important details?

I know it was addressed to other poster but I hope you’ll excuse me butting in with my :twocents: The question is what are the important details that Fr. Fortescue was referring to? The rearrangement of the structure of the Mass moving things from the Offertory into the Canon, as done first in the 4th century and then later by St. Gregory by shifting the Our Father and the kiss of peace-that to him, is an important detail.
Prayers at the foot of the altar or digifying actions like kissing the altar with prayers is not an important detail. I think if you read his book he is the first to admit that the Roman rite has been changed as a result of its contact with the Gallician liturgies. But in its essentials-like the Canon and the overall order-not much. The thing is that, while the quotes are accurate they have to be understood in a certain sense, no?-and not that the whole Order of the Mass and the Roman Missal of 1570 was used verbatim by St. Gregory, but that it developed naturally with codification from his ‘foundation’.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I hope I’ll be excused for posting the same thing in two threads. The parts Fr. Fortescue are referring to is, first and foremost the Canon-which is the heart of the Mass. Then the overall structure to which St. Gregory had made changes. Not individual parts and certainly not many of the prayers of the ‘Tridentine’ Mass-he would be too good a scholar to do that.

If one goes through the Tridetine Mass and compares it to the Mass of St. Gregory the Great

-No prayers at the foot of the altar-nothing upto the Introit. The prayer “Aufer a nobis” is ancient (from the Leonine Sacramentary) but there it appears in another capacity not in the Ordinary.
-Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Epistle, Gospel blessing (the action not the wording) and Gospel as in the time of St. Gregory the Great. However the collects were restricted in number, and the Kyrie may have frequently been a litany on major days and the Gloria was for the bishops only and on certain feasts. Also, all the collects do not date form that time, but the Epistles and Gospels of the Sundays however, do.
-No Creed
No Offertory prayers in whatever capacity.
-The Secret (or the Oratio Super Oblata) followed
The Canon of the Mass as it is, with the preceding prefaces (except that the prefaces were different), and the Memento for the Dead in the Canon being omitted on the greater days.
The Our Father and the embolism to which St. Gregory added the name of St. Andrew. It was said aloud, however.
Pax Domini, the triple signing (with however the Sancta a particle form the earlier Mass) as at the time of St. Gregory. However, at the time of St. Gregory, the kiss of peace comes here-in the TLM it is placed later.
The Agnus Dei was introduced a little later than St. Gregory but consider as from his time. The fraction took place during the singing.
None of the 3 prayers after the Agnus Dei. None of the communion prayers. Instead the Pope communicated, dropped another Particle into the chalice with the prayer “Haec commixtio…” (placed earlier in the TLM) and then said “Pax tecum” before communicating.
No ablution prayers.
The salutation “Dominus vobiscum” and the poastcommunion is the same
Ite Missa est.
No blessing by priest, hwoever the higher clergy blessed the people as they went out.
No Placeat or Last Gospel.

Mr. Davies himself was usually careful in quoting sources, however sometimes his sources were slightly dated and at fault. E.g. the statement also found at the link you provided that says that St. Pius X only made a reform of the Gradual music. The quote is accurate but at the time when that book was written, St. Pius X had only made a reform in the gradual music but later he made others in rankings, etc. which Fr. Fortescue did not fail to note but that was later in an addenum to the book.

I just wanted to point out somethign that was slightly funny thoguh unrelated to the discussion. He quotes the Letter from the Catholic bishops to the Anglicans at the time of the controversy over Orders with regard to drastic changes. While the comment is quite valid regarding the missal of 1970, it is funny because in a retort some years later, the Anglicans (like Dr. J. Legg) hit back at that particular passage by pointing to the breviary rearrangement of St. Pius X.

AJV, thank you for posting this. I do not consider myself a liturgical expert and thus of course I assume what you post is accurate. My overall point is that the Tridentine Mass has organically developed from the time of St. Gregory the Great with the canon pretty much intact from that time. Further, most of the changes you mention from the time of St. Gregory to the Tridentine are additions, not eliminations. A further point is that Trent did not enact a drastic revision of the Mass. They codified it to make it more uniform.

Hence I still consider Fr. Fortescue’s quote,

“From roughly the time of St. Gregory [d. 604] we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.”
-----Fr. Adrian Fortescue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy [1912], p. 173

romancatholicism.org/davies-short.htm#a6

to be accurate. A good book I’ve been reading liturgy and its development is,

The Organic Development of the Liturgy: The Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their Relation to the 20th Century Liturgical Movement Prior to the Second Vatican Council (Hardcover)
by Dom Alcuin Reid (Author).

God bless!

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I know it was addressed to other poster but I hope you’ll excuse me butting in with my :twocents: The question is what are the important details that Fr. Fortescue was referring to? The rearrangement of the structure of the Mass moving things from the Offertory into the Canon, as done first in the 4th century and then later by St. Gregory by shifting the Our Father and the kiss of peace-that to him, is an important detail.
Prayers at the foot of the altar or digifying actions like kissing the altar with prayers is not an important detail. I think if you read his book he is the first to admit that the Roman rite has been changed as a result of its contact with the Gallician liturgies. But in its essentials-like the Canon and the overall order-not much. The thing is that, while the quotes are accurate they have to be understood in a certain sense, no?-and not that the whole Order of the Mass and the Roman Missal of 1570 was used verbatim by St. Gregory, but that it developed naturally with codification from his ‘foundation’.

Yes, AJV, I’d agree with what you are saying. I of course don’t believe the Tridentine Mass is a verbatim copy of the Mass of St. Gregory the Great (and yet apparently the Canon has not changed much at all).

I agree also that the Tridentine Mass developed naturally with codification from the foundation of the Mass of St. Gregory the Great.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Moot point for me. I have lived long enough to ignor the nit-wits on both sides.

Mass is Mass to me and I shall continue to follow Rome. I’m too old for non-sense. I don’t have time.

I don’t think it’s about age. I’ve been attending regularly as a revert only for the last 5 or so years and I agree with your sentiment here.

 

[pnewton]

My answer is “no”. I do not love the Mass the way some (a minority) Traditionalist love the TLM. It is not the Mass that I worship, but the Christ who is present there. While most of the Masses I attend are very beautiful, I occasional find one that is bland. I even had to go to a LifeTeen Mass I found over the top.

Belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a matter of faith. Faith must not depend on the trappings and surroundings. Guitars do not nullify it. Dancing does not invalidate it. Touching the hands of a lay person does not deconsecrate it.

It is human to have a preference. It is lauditory to honor Christ by making Mass as holy as possible. But we must not make the error of Thomas who refused to believe in the resurrection until his senses could see and touch Christ.

I have only been a Catholic ten years, so I can not know what many of you have gone through. Here I have seen a pitfall I know I must avoid as time goes on, that of focusing on the trappings of the Mass more than God who made the ultimate sacrifice for me. This is the pre-eminent focus of our faith. If we put first things first, I think we all, Traditionalist and non-traditionalist alike, would find that the rest would follow.

Pray for our priests.

 

[gospel_life]

Can you back up anything you say with any actual quotes from people who are recognized experts in liturgical matters? Can you make an argument for your assertion that the Tridentine Mass does not go back to the time of St. Gregory the Great?

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.

As far as people perferring the NO Mass and the venacular, then why did Mass attendance plummet after Vatican II and the changes to the Mass? Shouldn’t Mass attendance have increased if the changes were so popular?

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. People have become prosperous and decided they don’t need God, a sad state that will take some time to return to balance. If you look at the percentage of those who do attend however, it will show that the overwhelming majority attend NO masses. 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.

Didn’t Sancrosanctum Concilium intend for the changes to the liturgy to improve the liturgy? And thus shouldn’t you be arguing for the superiority of the Novus Ordo over the Mass of St. Gregory the Great?

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 again, there is no such thing as “the Mass of St Gregory the Great”, no matter how hard you are trying to create that term.

To state, for instance, that the music of Mozart is better (and better for you) than that of Britney Spears is not an idolization of form. It is a rational assessment which can also be done in regards to the liturgy.

LOL.

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

pnewton:

Here I have seen a pitfall I know I must avoid as time goes on, that of focusing on the trappings of the Mass more than God who made the ultimate sacrifice for me.

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.

 

[water]

To me, going to a LTM would be as same as going to any other mass where people speak language that I don’t understand.

I feel more comfortable with N.O (is that what we called today’s mass - I don’t know the term). I prefer to understand as much as I could what we all say in the Mass.

The most important thing is what you offer to the Lord when you go to Mass. LTM is not the thing that I have to worry about, it is my stage of life that I need to worry about before going to mass.

 

[Hesychios]

To me, going to a LTM would be as same as going to any other mass where people speak language that I don’t understand.

I think an English language version of the Traditional Mass would be well received. It has been done.

I feel more comfortable with N.O (is that what we called today’s mass - I don’t know the term). I prefer to understand as much as I could what we all say in the Mass.

I can understand this. I firmly believe that worship should be in the vernacular.

That is precisely why the Mass was changed to Latin originally, because it was in Greek for 300 years. (It would be nice to replicate that early Mass in Greek for educational purposes). If the church had followed this policy (worship in the local language) faithfully there would have been Masses in multiple new languages by the ninth century. As it is, that only happened in Illyria (Yugoslavia) where the traditional Mass was translated and used in Old Church Slavonic, because the Latin church was taking control of eastern rite congregations that already used Slavonic.

The ‘common’ liturgy today should be referred to as the Normative Mass, I believe. Missa Normativa

Michael