Does anyone else remember the transition from the TLM to the NO?

[brotherhrolf]

Right! It is amazing to read at many sites and blogs how positively people are reacting - those who have never even experienced the TLM before.

My grandmother passed away on the morning of the 150th anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans. She was buried from St. Alphonsus. Her two grandsons assisted at Mass though they were not members of St. Alphonsus Parish. It was a Requiem Mass and Father was vested in black. My grandmother’s grandmother was buried from St. Alphonsus - as was my great grandfather, gosh, everyone.

St. Alphonsus is closed. It is now an Irish heritage cultural museum. But I hear the voices of my ancestors. Baptism, first communion, confirmation, marriage, death - the language they heard was Latin. I helped bury my grandmother in Latin. Oh, no! We kids back then didn’t know what we were doing. Malarky!

Father came to the house the night before my grandmother died. A Redemptorist priest in cassock and biretta. I assited at my grandmother’s last rites. Father gave me a holy card of Father Seelos who is now Blessed Father Seelos - a Redemptorist priest who gave his life in service to the victims of the Yellow Fever epidemic in NO. I still have that holy card in my 1962 missal.

There were many of us who were cut adrift by the abrupbt transistion to the NO. We’re not dead yet! We’re feeling better!

 

[Hansel]

I remember the changes clearly. At first, only parts of the Mass were said in the vernacular. Then most of it, then all of it. Some of the first translations into English were actually quite beautiful. And then “He took into His goodly hands, a most excellent chalice.” became, “He took the cup”. Dumbed down for the “masses” who, for centuries had little problem hearing the Mass in Latin. (Or the plays of Shakespeare in beautiful old English.)

I accepted everything, did as I was told, and ignored the little voice that kept telling me that "something wasn’t right. Then one day it all fell apart for me. After serving Mass one morning the priest handed me, a layman, a chalice of consecrated hosts and the tabernacle key saying, “Here, would you put this away for me?”

Hans

 

[Petergee]

I remember the changes clearly. At first, only parts of the Mass were said in the vernacular. Then most of it, then all of it. Some of the first translations into English were actually quite beautiful. And then “He took into His goodly hands, a most excellent chalice.” became, “He took the cup”. Dumbed down for the “masses”

I guess you think I’m “dumb” but I much prefer the latter. Beautiful and direct. The miracle of the Eucharist is the most wonderful mracle in the world. You don’t add to its beuty by adding meaningless expressions. What does “goodly hands” mean? I doubt if Jesus used a “most excellent” chalice, it probably was just like most of the other chalices in those days.

I accepted everything, did as I was told, and ignored the little voice that kept telling me that "something wasn’t right. Then one day it all fell apart for me. After serving Mass one morning the priest handed me, a layman, a chalice of consecrated hosts and the tabernacle key saying, “Here, would you put this away for me?”

Hans

I hope by “it all fell apart for me” you don’t mean you lost your faith, just because nobody had told you, or you hadn’t bothered to find out, that there had been a change in the Church’s disciplinary rules about laymen handling a ciborium? (Yes Hosts are kept in a ciborium, the chalice is for the Precious Blood only).

 

[Hansel]

I guess you think I’m “dumb” but I much prefer the latter. Beautiful and direct. The miracle of the Eucharist is the most wonderful mracle in the world. You don’t add to its beuty by adding meaningless expressions. What does “goodly hands” mean? I doubt if Jesus used a “most excellent” chalice, it probably was just like most of the other chalices in those days. I hope by “it all fell apart for me” you don’t mean you lost your faith, just because nobody had told you, or you hadn’t bothered to find out, that there had been a change in the Church’s disciplinary rules about laymen handling a ciborium? (Yes Hosts are kept in a ciborium, the chalice is for the Precious Blood only).

No, I don’t think you are dumb. I do think thjough that Catholics are intelligent enough to appreciate the beauty of language without it being reduced to bare essentials. And sorry, but we DO add to the beauty of the Eucharist with ritual, and much of our ritual could be called “meaningless expressions”. Ritual speaks to us on many levels, not only the intellectual one, and making it beautiful, connecting it to our past or keeping that connection, is hardly meaningless. Jesus didn’t make the sign of the cross either. Why do we bother to do it? Jesus didn’t genuflect before the altar. Why do we? Are these meaningless gestures? And you don’t have a sense of what “goodly hands” means? It isn’t modern English true, but it’s poetic, and THAT is a part of what good ritual is too. Not too hard to fathom the meaning of “goodly hands”.

Re: “falling apart”. No, I didn’t lose my faith. I began to appreciate my catholic heritage more. You perhaps presume that I “didn’t bother” to learn about Church regulations re: laymen handling a ciborium. My problem with the incident related concerns the casual way in which the priest handed it to me. It might as well have been a cup of coffee, not the Body of Christ that he was asking me to “put away”. He was in a hurry to get to a golf game. And why may I ask are you posting on the Traditional Catholic blog? If you have no sense of the things that I was speaking of from a traditionalist point of view, why comment on them at all? Had I made my points (hardly immflamatory) on a pro Novus Ordo blog, I could understand, but here?

 

[Hansel]

Tried to edit my own post but exceeded the time limit. Wanted to add that “meaningless” symbolic gestures and expressions in ritual can cut to the heart and soul more quickly than simplified English sometimes can, and make a more lasting impression. When you drive and come to a place where you are supposed to stop your car, someone isn’t standing on the corner yelling “Stop your car!” Instead, there’s a sign in place with a symbol on it. Your brain “knows” what the symbol means. It doesn’t process the information first via verbal imput. This is largely what ritual is about as well, not to mention sacred space, architecture, religious art, music, etc.

The entire Old Mass speaks to us, not just its spoken content. Simple and direct can be good, but not if it obscures the fact that ours is a mystery religion and that faith transcends intellect. All the simplification of language and gesture in the world is not going to help us understand that which is ultimately unfathomable. Modernists hate this, much preferring to focus on the “practical” aspects of religion despite the fact that religion is never about the practical. It affects us in daily life to be sure, but that is a benefit, not a primary goal. We are not good Catholics so that we can be good neighbors and good citizens and good people. We are these things because we try to be good Catholics.

Jesus cured the sick and fed the hungry, but His focus was always on the Father in Heaven and it was that focus which facilitated and prompted His actions regarding the former.
Our focus as Catholics has traditionally been on the promise of eternal life, not happiness in this world. I know I’ve rambled a bit from my response to your comments about a need for liturgical language to be “direct”, but I am attempting to point out that the old Mass is infinitely more “direct” in speaking to us in my opinion (posted here, on a Traditional Catholic thread, remember?) than the pared down one size fits all liturgy that seeks to speak to the head first, then the heart and soul.

As an aside: my sister is a charismatic Catholic. She hates the Latin Mass (hard for her to understand) yet prays to God in tongues, claiming that the “meaning” of it all is sensed by her in a non-intellectual way. Ironic.

 

[DebChris]

In the document on the Sacred Liturgy, Vatican II sought to retain the essentials of the Mass while eliminating the superfulous. There was a goal of the Magisterium for greater participation by the faithful rather than for us to remain silent spectators.
I was blessed by chaplains and cathecists that explained the changes as they came about. I respect that this was not true in all parishes. Because the Kyrie had always been in Greek, I would have understood its remaining in the original language within the Mass. We were told the purpose of the changes to the liturgy were to return us to the Mass as originally celebrated by the early Church.
Difficulties with the Latin Mass included not understanding the language. True, we carried dual language missals but it was a constant effort to match the prayers recited with those being said. We had been taught the chalice always had to be lined with gold which did not really make sense since Jesus himself was poor.
There is a difference between Latin, which I do not know, and the prayer language that is the gift of the Holy Spirit. In order for the prayer language to be manifested, I must submit to the Holy Spirit who prays through me when I do not know how to pray.
I understand the desire to kneel at the altar rail for communion. I have only recently become more aware of how much more expeditious it is for the line of communicants to receive the host and return directly to their pews where the same reverance for the Eucharist can be given. When we receive, we carry Christ with us.
A recent medical emergency also demonstrated how much easier it is for the presider (the priest) to move people as needed without disrupting the Mass. The gospel for the day that happened was the Good Samaritan. The woman was not only able to receive Communion, she was also anointed after everybody else had received. The Communion hymn was “What soever you do for the Least of my Brothers.”

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is going off topic with side issues–I will have to close the thread if this continues. Please keep to the original topic and start new threads if you wish to discuss other related issues, everyone. Thank you.

 

[Hansel]

In the document on the Sacred Liturgy, Vatican II sought to retain the essentials of the Mass while eliminating the superfulous. There was a goal of the Magisterium for greater participation by the faithful rather than for us to remain silent spectators.

I actually have no problem with the new Mass if it is said with reverence. I never felt though that I was a “spectator” at the old Mass. Priest and people had their role, and neither role was “less” or “more” based on a perceived degree of active participation. That wasn’t the focus or reason for being there.

I was blessed by chaplains and cathecists that explained the changes as they came about. I respect that this was not true in all parishes. Because the Kyrie had always been in Greek, I would have understood its remaining in the original language within the Mass. We were told the purpose of the changes to the liturgy were to return us to the Mass as originally celebrated by the early Church.

In returning to the liturgy celebrated by the early Church, what then happens to centuries of liturgical development that came about through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Was all of that a mistake? I am not at all saying that the Mass has never changed or shouldn’t change. I am at a loss as how to justify such a drastic break with all that went before when what went before came from God too.

Difficulties with the Latin Mass included not understanding the language. True, we carried dual language missals but it was a constant effort to match the prayers recited with those being said. We had been taught the chalice always had to be lined with gold which did not really make sense since Jesus himself was poor.

Gold was used because it is valuable in many cultures, and represented giving to God the best we had. If the president came to your house for dinner, you’d no doubt put out your best china? Same thing. Is the Mass valid if paper plates and cups are used instead of gold or silver vessels? No doubt, depending on circumstance. But is paper or clay or glass the best we can give? Depends on perspective I suppose. We could help the poor with the money spent on gold chalices, but the poor have also been edified by being able to worship in glorious churches too, and have sensed in them, heaven. Think of all the poor immigrants who helped build magnificent churches with what little they had.

There is a difference between Latin, which I do not know, and the prayer language that is the gift of the Holy Spirit. In order for the prayer language to be manifested, I must submit to the Holy Spirit who prays through me when I do not know how to pray.

Understood. But in either case, there can be a sense of “understanding” which transcends intellectual understanding.
Latin isn’t the only aspect of the old Mass. The sum and total of the rite, when submitted to, acts as a vehicle that carries us to a destination. The reception of Christ in the Eucharist.
I

 

[DebChris]

My understanding is that this thread is not about one form of the Mass being better than another.
The structure of the Mass has changed through time to enhance the worship of the people. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. At Mass we are nourished by the Word as proclaimed in the gospel message. The NO includes not only an epistle reading on Sundays but an Old Testament reading everyday plus a Psalm.
Early in this thread there is a scene from an Elvis movie. Elvis is playing the guitar while the altar faces the wall. The altar was turned long before the development of any guitar Masses. Converts like Thomas Merton have spoken about the reverance displayed by Catholics as leading them toward the Church. That reverance is lacking from the scene shown.
Yes, rituals provide comfort and change is more difficult for some people than it is for others. Many did not understand what was happening as the changes took place and experienced trauma. Others like myself were more fortunate in having catechetists, chaplains, and other priests explain what was going on.
The Magisterium is entrusted by the Holy Spirit with protecting Tradition and Scripture. It is the Magisterium (the Pope and bishops) that gathered to address issues facing the Church at Vatican II. No doctrines or teachings were changed.

 

[Hansel]

My apologies for the confusing appearance of my previous post. I quoted someone and responded to sections of her comments thinking that the original would show up in quotes with my responses inserted in between. It didn’t, and both her and my comments appear as one post. Again, my apologies.

 

[Genesis315]

It seems to me, from the people I talk to from older generations, that most (not all) enthusastically welcomed the changes, especially the vernacular. I find that it is people from my generation and the one who only knew the TLM as a kid or teenager who are the one’s who want it back. This leads me to believe that maybe things were being done in a way that the TLM was not having the impact on people it should have. In way, maybe putting it aside for a while was the best thing for it in the long run. Now it is returning and priests and laity are treating it with the reverence, care, piety, and devotion that may have been lacking before when it was taken for granted.

As someone who has experienced a banal TLM (yes, they do exist still nowadays), I can see how the Novus Ordo would have been greatly welcomed.

I think, however, the patience and perseverance that has been endured by those who want it back to get it back, will bring great fruits for the older form and we are less likely to see it done banally, but rather with all it’s glory and splendor.

 

[mtr01]

Father came to the house the night before my grandmother died. A Redemptorist priest in cassock and biretta. I assited at my grandmother’s last rites. Father gave me a holy card of Father Seelos who is now Blessed Father Seelos - a Redemptorist priest who gave his life in service to the victims of the Yellow Fever epidemic in NO. I still have that holy card in my 1962 missal.

I know this is off-topic, but I couldn’t help commenting on a “small world” phenomenon. Bl. Father Seelos was at one point the rector of…St. Alphonsus in Baltimore, which when I lived there was the home of Baltimore’s…TLM. Perhaps this is just another indication of the mysterious way Our Lord works.

As a side note, if Bl. Father Seelos is canonized, St. Alphonsus would be the only church in the U.S. with two Saints as former pastors (St. John Neuman being the other).

 

[DebChris]

I wanted to address an issue I raised. My cathechesis before Vatican II tended to focus more on externals than on interior disposition. Part of this may have been because of my age as well as the culture of the time. I raised questions that I had but could not express at the time.
One of the questions dealt with why the inside of the chalice always had be lined with gold when Jesus himself was poor. I was happy when clay chalices began to be used in the Mass. This seemed to me what Jesus himself would have probably used. On the other hand, I am a pragmatist as well as a woman of faith. Recently the bishops have called for a return to the use of metal chalices. Clay is porous and breakable. Metal eliminates the complications that occur because of possible breakage.
Vatican II made big news not only within the Catholic Church but in the secular media as well. That is how I knew of the dramatic experiences others were having when communion rails were removed along with the statues with which people were accustomed. Again, it all comes down to communication or lack thereof regarding the changes proposed by Vatican II.
I learned how to make a Confession in a dark closet where the priest did not see me. It took awhile for me to not only seek the Sacrament of Reconciliation face-to-face but to perfer it that way. It is not easy to let go of the familiar.

 

[patrick457]

I wanted to address an issue I raised. My cathechesis before Vatican II tended to focus more on externals than on interior disposition. Part of this may have been because of my age as well as the culture of the time. I raised questions that I had but could not express at the time.
One of the questions dealt with why the inside of the chalice always had be lined with gold when Jesus himself was poor…

Well, Jesus deserves all our best. The Jews honored God by making the Temple of Jerusalem big and grand. The Ark of the Covenant itself was made of pure gold.

If they honored God by giving and making the very best for His dwelling; should we also not, as the New Israel, also give Him all our best?

And just because Jesus was poor does not mean we should not construct gold chalices and patens to hold Him.

 

[Petergee]

No, I don’t think you are dumb. I do think thjough that Catholics are intelligent enough to appreciate the beauty of language without it being reduced to bare essentials. And sorry, but we DO add to the beauty of the Eucharist with ritual, and much of our ritual could be called “meaningless expressions”. Ritual speaks to us on many levels, not only the intellectual one, and making it beautiful, connecting it to our past or keeping that connection, is hardly meaningless. Jesus didn’t make the sign of the cross either. Why do we bother to do it? Jesus didn’t genuflect before the altar. Why do we? Are these meaningless gestures? And you don’t have a sense of what “goodly hands” means? It isn’t modern English true, but it’s poetic, and THAT is a part of what good ritual is too. Not too hard to fathom the meaning of “goodly hands”.

Yes, both simple and complex rituals can be beautiful.

Re: “falling apart”. No, I didn’t lose my faith. I began to appreciate my catholic heritage more. You perhaps presume that I “didn’t bother” to learn about Church regulations re: laymen handling a ciborium. My problem with the incident related concerns the casual way in which the priest handed it to me. It might as well have been a cup of coffee, not the Body of Christ that he was asking me to “put away”. He was in a hurry to get to a golf game.

Which seems unrelated to whether laymen can handle the ciborium. If that rule hadn’t been changed, this apparently lax priest would probably have put the ciborium away himself ina hurried and irreverent way. [Edited by Moderator]

 

[Hansel]

Excuse me? I read all the forum rules, there is nothing there to suggest that any poster cannot post to any forum (not “blog”) he wishes. Or that posters have to take up a “pro-Novus Ordo” or “anti-Novus Ordo” position. This forum is for discussion of Traditional Catholicism, there is no rule saying “you can’t say anything which suggests you prefer any aspect of the Paul VI Mass to the John XXIII Mass”. And this thread is specifically about the transition period.

I posted comments about the change from Latin to English in a forum dealing with traditional Catholicism. Read the initial post that got the thread started. It concerns the loss of the Latin Mass which the author misses.I shared my feelings about the changes and my comments were in keeping with the tone of initial post and were based on my feelings and experiences. You then replied, telling me in essence things that I appreciated (like the first translations of the Mass into English) were meaningless. Why even bother doing this? You could have said that you found the simpler English translations to be more meaningful for YOU, but you didn’t.You were not offering a thoughtful alternative opinion. You were being unkind. You had no reason for responding to my post other than to assert your contrary opinion and belittle that which I have an affinity for by making it look stupid.

You also felt the need to correct me on my use of the words “chalice” versus “ciborium” and “blog” versus “forum”. I, like most people, sometimes mispeak, make typos, etc, I also post to forums hurriedly on lunch breaks or whatever. Thank God there are perfect people like you who will step in and point out the faults of others, both religious and grammatical. I have no problem with respectful, differing opinions or questions re: what I believe and hold dear. You approached me with neither.

 

[KathleenElsie]

One of the questions dealt with why the inside of the chalice always had be lined with gold when Jesus himself was poor. I was happy when clay chalices began to be used in the Mass.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/03561a.htm
**

PRESENT LEGISLATION

According to the existing law of the Church the chalice, or at least the cup of it, must be made either of gold or of silver, and in the latter case the bowl must be gilt on the inside. In circumstances of great poverty or in time of persecution a calix stanneus (pewter) may be permitted, but the bowl of this also, like the upper surface of the paten, must be gilt. Before the chalice and paten are used in the Sacrifice of the Mass they require consecration. This rite is carried out according to a form specially provided in the “Pontificale” and involving the use of holy chrism. The consecration must be performed by a bishop (or in the case of chalices intended for monastic use, by an abbot possessing the privilege), and a bishop cannot in an ordinary way delegate any priest to perform this function in his place.sacred vessels.
**

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please keep to the topic, everyone. Start new threads to deal with side issues. Thank you.

 

[sneakers]

I can see how it would be confusing for you since you had only started the journey. Had the Mass continued in Latin for another year or two, you would have understood far more. I can still see my mother’s finger in her Missal pointing out the Latin and the English for me as I knelt by her side.

That is one of my earliest memories as well. I was born in 1955 and made my first communion in 1962. I remember sitting next to my mother at mass and following along in my little First Communion MIssal. I knew exactly what was going on. I remember the men’s choir singing the responses. We were a small mission church, but we still had a wonderful choir!
I attended the local parochial school from 1st through 3rd grade - we didn’t have a kindergarten at my school. The nuns were dressed in full habits. The boys would watch for them to come from the convent next door in the morning and would run out to carry their satchels for them. Even in just three years, I gained such a knowledge of, and love for, our faith. The nuns drilled it into us! Every Easter we got new, pretty hats to wear to mass. I have such wonderful memories! I still remember wearing a mantilla and then, all of a sudden, we didn’t have to wear a head cover anymore. I don’t remember being very upset at the time. I think, in the years that followed, I just noticed that the music was getting really bad, and I still remember the ‘liturgical dance’ at one mass. (girls in tights dancing around the altar).Then there was the masses with tambourines and a guitar and drums. Several years ago, we even had a ukelele. Our priest removed the beautiful high altar and painted a rainbow design on the wall where it used to be. It was pretty bad. (That has since been painted over, that goodness!)

I sincerely hope that we will see a return of the reverent, of the sense of mystery. I love the EF for this reason, but I have seen OF masses done with reverence as well.

 

[DebChris]

It seems to be easy to become sidetracked on the thread. What I remember during the very short time that I was able to go to a parochial school was daily Mass every morning before school. It was something I looked forward to. At the time it was still in Latin.
What I most often heard about the Mass was that where ever you traveled in the world, the Mass would always be the same. The use of the venacular and introduction of different elements of cultural expression was therefore very uncomfortable for many people.
Yes, there were unexpressed questions that I had at the time. My knowledge has grown since that time. I know more than I did as a child. A complete reading of what I wrote would have perhaps made that clearer. The issue was revisited simply to put it to rest.
I have always loved the Mass.
While the Latin Mass was beautiful, I love the Mass even more as it is celebrated today. The main point of my last post was that change is not always easy but some times that change enriches us more than remaining in our comfort zone. That has been my experience anyway.