Do you prefer the TLM ONLY because of the language used?

[CradleCath]

There has been much posted about the Latin language. I prefer the TLM because of the theology involved in this Mass.

Kneeling to receive Our Lord.

The priest is not the “presider” but a “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

We, the laity, remain in our pews.

The Mass lifts one above the mundane & ordinary.

I have to leave for a while.If I didn’t, I could post so many more reasons. I’m sure hoping that some of you who prefer the TLM will give your motivation for embracing this Mass.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

As I’ve voted elsewhere, I would take the missal of Bl. John XXIII in the vernacular over the missal of Paul VI in Latin. The texts, the ritual, and it seems most everything about it are all much richer.

 

[Like]

There has been much posted about the Latin language. I prefer the TLM because of the theology involved in this Mass.

Kneeling to receive Our Lord.

The priest is not the “presider” but a “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

We, the laity, remain in our pews.

The Mass lifts one above the mundane & ordinary.

I have to leave for a while.If I didn’t, I could post so many more reasons. I’m sure hoping that some of you who prefer the TLM will give your motivation for embracing this Mass.

I voted the center (Other reasons). and I agree with your answers plus so many more. Latin being a dead language leaves no room for changing or adding of words.
To me the TLM is more reverent, I dislike the holding of hands in the Our Father & the kiss of peace in the OF (NO) Mass, BUT I DO Believe the OF is a valid Mass. When ever we have a visiting priest, which is quit often, There is one whose first word (very loud) at the altar is Alooooha!
And he is not a young priest.
Unfortunately, to attend a TLM, I would have to hop a plane to another island.

 

[CradleCath]

Like;3519211]I voted the center (Other reasons). and I agree with your answers plus so many more. Latin being a dead language leaves no room for changing or adding of words.
To me the TLM is more reverent, I dislike the holding of hands in the Our Father & the kiss of peace in the OF (NO) Mass, BUT I DO Believe the OF is a valid Mass. When ever we have a visiting priest, which is quit often, There is one whose first word (very loud) at the altar is Alooooha!
And he is not a young priest.
Unfortunately, to attend a TLM, I would have to hop a plane to another island./

Sorry about that. You’re missing something awesome.
I find the whole theology of the Novus Ordo is lacking what is so important in the TLM. I do not like comparing the two Masses, but am finding it very hard to give the reasons why…after 40+ years, I have gone back to the Missal of John XXIII without making any comparisons.

It’s not, as I said in an earlier post, JUST the language. It’s the elevation of the laity to suggest equality with the Sacramental Priesthood that’s so evident in the Novus Ordo.

It’s the constant hub-bub of EEM’s (who really aren’t necessary in most of our parishes) leaving their pews, finding their place in the Sanctuary, it’s the lay readers many of whom are given these job as a means of making them feel important. It’s the hand-shaking, arm-raising in the Novus Ordo which is so distracting.

It’s the standing (as equals to Christ) to receive the Eucharist.

It’s the presence in the TLM. of the attitude of atonement. In theTridentine Mass the priest says:

“Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen.”

In the newer, regular Mass, the priest says:
“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.”

No mention of the shame we feel (& SHOULD feel) for causing Christ to suffer so much agony. No mention of our sins.

It’s almost as if, the “spirit of Vatican II” wanted to deny the truth about God. Being all merciful & also all-just, He required a Sacrifice in order to open the gates of heaven. Today’s vision of God as an indulgent old Grandfather who pats us on the head & says, “No problem. I understand why you couldn’t follow my Commandments. I am completely tolerant of all behavior”. This is not what Christ told us.

It’s the absence of the words which make us feel shame for our sins. It’s the loss of our Roman Canon, which emphasizes the Communion of the Saints. I have found that since Vat. II, the saints (& Mary) have taken a back seat.

 

[preV2tradcath]

As I’ve voted elsewhere, I would take the missal of Bl. John XXIII in the vernacular over the missal of Paul VI in Latin. The texts, the ritual, and it seems most everything about it are all much richer.

I agee with you, Andreas. In my opinion, the Novus Ordo is valid, but it greatly waters down the Faith. On the rare Sundays that we don’t have our TLM, and I have to attend the N.O., I leave thinking I haven’t been to Mass. When I get home, I get out my missal and read the traditional Mass for the day.
Also CradleCath posted great comments at 5:32pm., post #4.

 

[kleary]

I started attending the TLM only -

After I learned from Catholic Answers how to defend the faith.

The TLM shows Catholic Doctrine fully, completely, unambiguously and free from error.

Ken

 

[ProVobis]

“Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences;"

Actually I have read where the translation of “hostia” should have been “Victim” not “host” to signify the sacrifice that is taking place. Makes more sense to me.

 

[patrick457]

I have other reasons for preferring the TLM (though I’ll admit I never attended one), namely: ‘The hermeneutic of continuity’.
I really hope that this liturgical rite (and the other, less well-known rites of the Western Church) will once more be well known.

 

[I_Believe]

The Mass lifts one above the mundane & ordinary.

The TLM shows Catholic Doctrine fully, completely, unambiguously and free from error.

Ken

Both well said. Latin protects the Mass and the Doctrine it professes. It is indeed unambiguous and cannot be altered without error. Latin ensures that.

And Latin does indeed enable us to be removed from the mundane and ordinary. The TLM is unlike anything else we encounter in daily life. Even if we make it part of our daily life by weekday attendence, the latin takes us away from the mundane chatter.

Venacular threatens both qualities.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Both well said. Latin protects the Mass and the Doctrine it professes. It is indeed unambiguous and cannot be altered without error. Latin ensures that.

And yet the divine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is said in the vernacular, and it isn’t in latin, nor is it in Greek in most all of the Byzantine Catholic Churches in America. So it seems that the problem is not that Latin is some kind of insurance policy against liturgical innovation. It is a particular issue within the latin rite.

And Latin does indeed enable us to be removed from the mundane and ordinary.

And so does every other language. What you speak of is preference. And preference is fine. But just because your experience of latin elevates you above the ordinary and mundane does not mean that this maxim is universally true for all.

The TLM is unlike anything else we encounter in daily life.

Neither is the Novus Ordo, if you know what’s happening in the liturgy. Neither is the Byzantine rite liturgy. TLM is not the single and only answer to your statement above.
It depends upon the disposition of the person.

Personally, I feel that the Byzantine rite liturgy far surpasses both TLM as well as the Novus Ordo. However, I would not assert that the byzantine rite is superior to any other rite.

Even if we make it part of our daily life by weekday attendence, the latin takes us away from the mundane chatter.

Venacular threatens both qualities.

I disagree for the reasons I spoke above.

 

[m134e5]

I prefer the TLM because the prayers are longer, and there are more of them. The prayers emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass more. I like the silent canon, and that the congregation doesn’t have to say anything. There is something to be said for silent, contemplative, participation.

I prefer the TLM because of the reverence of the priests and those who tend to attend that liturgy. I prefer traditional hymns and polyphony, and I like traditional-style churches. I prefer women to wear veils and for everyone to receive communion on their tongues, while kneeling at a communion rail. I prefer the Mass to be said ad orientem.

 

[I_Believe]

I disagree for the reasons I spoke above.

I’ll have to go with what the man who callled the Second Vatican Council said on the matter.

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

You will see that it is decreed and commanded that Latin be retained. You will see that John XXIII, did not even want the subject of a venacular liturgy discussed, let alone implemented.

He identifies such as revolutionary change. (Read **modernism manifest **)

The Novus Ordo was introduced in Latin. As introduced, I hesitate to call it a novelty. But the Novus Ordo, as introduced, wasn’t good enough. There were those who could not help themselves, so revisions ensued and revolutionary change was embraced.

Let’s turn to Rome for comments on the result.

… Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: **"It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change **(November AD2000).

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by **Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. **Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes:** “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed **(il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: **“At this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” **(The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” (February 1979).

Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes:** “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy”** (Milestones, page 148).

Deo Gratias, there are/ were priests who would not walk the path of destruction and who continued to pray the Mass in Latin.

I attend both forms, but time permitting, I’ll attend the TLM.

 

[WestonGrant]

No way. Its way more than just the language. If you give me a choice between the N.O. and the TLM I’m going to the TLM every time. Okay, almost every time. There was one time I went to a TLM and the priest was definately not into it. It’s was totally painful.

It was almost worse to have a priest not into the TLM then when their not into the N.O. I’m prepared for that with the N.O.

But almost every time the TLM gets me in the right spiritual position before I receive. I don’t have to fight out the distractions. I’ve got enough of those whirling around in my own head. I don’t need any more.

By the way, anyone know any good TLMs in the Dallas area?

 

[CradleCath]

I have other reasons for preferring the TLM (though I’ll admit I never attended one), namely:** ‘The hermeneutic of continuity**’. I really hope that this liturgical rite (and the other, less well-known rites of the Western Church) will once more be well known.

Good point! Have you read Pope Benedict’s words on this very subject. A link follows this excerpt:

"On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform”, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. **She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God. **
the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2006/04/pope-benedict-xvi-on-hermeneutic-of.html

The New Order of the Mass is not the Mass which “increas(ed) in time & develop(ed)”. It is, indeed, the offspring of rupture. We people, who were coming of age during the council, were so busy during the time of implementation of the “spririt of Vatican II”…learning the new theology of the Mass for “modern man”, having & raising babies, watching & living the escalation of the war in Vienam, absorbing the assasinations of President Kenendy, Robert Kennedy & Martin Luther King & the riots on campuses all over the nation…that we didn’t realize until later…that the new Mass AND the new theology of the “Mass for modern man” was, indeed, a rupture. It was a complete “breaking apart”.

Piety, which is defined as: showing reverence for deity and devotion to divine worship & a duty towards all things holy, while it was still considered a good thing by mainstream Catholics… was fast becoming, in the minds of the Theologians at Vatican II, a nasty word bringing up images of old women in head scarves bent over rosaries while the young “good, modern women” were admired for burning their bras & bringing about the society of abortion so that they could be ‘FREE’.

The Church was our **one **steadfast thing during this era. Most of us didn’t have a clue about the revolution happening within. Why should we worry? We were the children of the golden years of Catholicism. God, the priests, nuns, the Popes & our Catholic parents had provided us with the one, true faith. They had given us a beautiful liturgy, a culture that was second to none, a school system built upon God, self-discipline & attention to excellence. We never gave it a thought that our Church would indulge in such a tearing apart of all that we held sacred.

Myself, I embraced the NO., just as I had the Mass of my youth…in the beginning. It wasn’t until years later that I truly realized the destruction caused by the rending apart of our Mass.

Our Pope said, “The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church.”

Let’s hope that those spearheading this movement that I call “digging in of the heels”…holding tight to the mistakes they made at the council, refusing to admit that the fruits of Vatican II are rotten & smelling…in other words, the liberal leadership of the USCCB…will wake up & join us in our endeavor to restore the dignity & morality of the TLM & the Catholic Church. Let us pray that, as their grip on the Catholic Church becomes weaker & weaker, they will wake up in time to prevent the schism that our Holy Father is concerned about.

 

[joelacour]

I like order, structure, predictability. I want to pray to God, without distractions like this: youtube.com/watch?v=31uSW4-1qC0 [view this and weep].

When I can’t make my TLM, I attend an NO wherever I am. There is no continuity between Masses. I get A in church X, B in church Y, and Lord knows what I saw in church Z.

I am reminded of a quote from Gladiator: “Are you entertained?!?!?” I don’t want to be entertained. I want to pray in a dignified manner to God without bells and whistles (or guitars, tambourines and hand holding).

Is this too much to ask??