P
pnewton
Guest
Why the scare quotes?
- Status
O
Ockham
Guest
Which is why this idea would have to be implemented out of the bishop’s office. He knows the needs and demographics of his diocese. For the parishes in new sub-divisions that are packed for multiple Sunday Masses, leave them alone. But the near empty urban churches could easily switch one of their NOs to a TLM. Advertise it within the diocese and see what happens. Let’s face it, Mass attendence is down, parishes are closing. In certain locations, what do we have to lose?
O
Ockham
Guest
Probably to highlight the difference between the emphasis on "celebration’ at NOs and “sacrifice” at TLMs.
Again, reverence.
P
pnewton
Guest
I would recommend anyone who wanted to speculate on what the Holy Father thinks to read the book, Spirit of the Liturgy, not the soundbite. I think the traditionalists that love that banal quote would be shocked to how he describes the TLM as a white-washed fresco and the Mass now as an exposure of that fresco which allows the brilliant colors to show through.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Ockham, I find it very, very hard to believe that you can be so disingenuous. If you attended Mass where I do on Sunday’s and Holy Days you would see nothing but reverence. This parish has been having the latin Mass since 1983, has numerous societies, maintains all of the “traditional” devotions, has a high altar and uses the altar rails at every Mass (except for the Maronite Mass that was celebrated there; it seems they don’t use altar rails…perhaps one of you here could clue them in). The other two parish’s that I infrequently attend also hold a high degree of reverence. The Church I attend in Florida when I visit my brother is no exception, either. I actually attended a latin Mass on Christmas day some years back because I missed the earlier Mass and it did not have anything more than what the Pauline Mass had in terms of reverence. The point is, reverence is where you find it. This constant harping that the OF isn’t as reverent as the EF is simply a non argument. There has been much testimony on these pages of people who witnessed more than their fair share of abuses at EF Masses. Yet, it doesn’t seem that anyone tries to paint all EF’s with the same brush as you and a few others. When the arguments run out the final cry is usually “why do you hate the latin Mass”? I can honestly say that I’ve seen far more anger and hostility - and yes, even hatred - from those who claim to be “traditionalists” than those who simply prefer the OF.
P
pnewton
Guest
I see and think it might well be a good idea, especially where such church’s are nearly empty. I have seldom been to nearly empty Masses myself. I think I have been to a couple in large downtown cathedrals while visiting. I only think the TLM gets unrealistic in parishes that are packed and have no demand. Even then, The TLM, or a standard Latin Mass, could be implemented on an occassional basis and see if a demand develops.
BTW - I keep hearing that Mass attendance is down but do not see it. The last report I saw had Catholics and Baptist as the only two Christian denominations to have gained in the last year, or decade. I can’t remember which.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Very interesting. Apparently, the Holy Father isn’t as in tune with some of our “traditionalists” here as they would like to believe. Thank God for Pope Benedict XVI; hopefully, he will have many, many productive years left.
O
Ockham
Guest
What page is that on?
P
pnewton
Guest
Ockham is right that the Holy Father appreciates the ad orientum Mass. I am somewhat surprised as much as he defended it that we have not seen anything on this topic yet. Like you said, may he have many years to come.
P
pnewton
Guest
The introduction. Here is a link to a partial quote from adoremus
adoremus.org/0906BenedictXVI.html
FYI - It is a metaphor, not an insult. It does not degrade the TLM, but merely shows a way in which it differs from the Mass today.* At that time*, he said there was no question of returning.
I really recommend this book. I think it adds balance to both sides of the aisle here.
O
Ockham
Guest
Amen to that, brother.
O
Ockham
Guest
Indeed, the Holy Father in 1999 as a cardinal described the TLM as a white washed fresco - protected. But we should read the preface in its entirety to understand the context. Emphasis mine.
“*The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a **new reverence *in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss.”
It seems to me the Holy Father is saying the mood of the TLM in the early part of the twentieth century was one of a closed off liturgy - hidden from the people. The NO came about after V2, the people got their hands on the liturgy and nearly destroyed it. Perhaps the Pope is looking for a more open liturgy that can withstand the creativity and abuse we’ve seen these past forty years. Otherwise, why would he as pope bring the TLM back?
O
Ockham
Guest
Not based on this thread.
Of course you can have a reverently said NO and an irreverently said TLM. I’ve seen the reports of abuses at TLM pre-V2: express Mass and intoxicated priest. My point is if both Masses are said properly and put side by side, there is more reverence in the TLM. For example, a genuflection is a sign of reverence. There are three in the NO and many more in the TLM (it’s too late for me to count them all right now). I’m not saying one form is better nor suggesting you shouldn’t attend it, but one of the key differences is reverence.
P
pnewton
Guest
That is how I took the metaphor. I think the statement about not going back means that he did not see a universal return to the TLM. However, open beauty of the liturgy, there for all the faithful to understand and engage in, must be done without marring it.
I really hate speculation because I see little value in it. I prefer just to go to with the flow. To myself though, I think the liturgy we have today will undergo a series of corrective protections. The return to a literal translation is a positive start. There are some other things I look to happen in my life time. Maybe I am right, maybe not.
L
LilyM
Guest
Isn’t it funny that some of these very same bishops, the ones who as you so rightly point out are the ones who actually know the needs and demographics of their dioceses (unlike you or I) are the same ones who, out of that knowledge which you and I do not possess, occasionally realise that their diocese actually DOESN’T need a TLM, or at least not one in every parish or on every Sunday.
Can’t have it both ways, either you know better than the bishops or you don’t, and you very much sound as if you think you do.
L
LilyM
Guest
Uhh, driving even more people out of the pews just off the top of my head. If everyone woke up tomorrow to find their modern cars replaced by gas-guzzling tanks from the '50s there’d be uproar. Same goes with liturgy that harks back to an imagined golden age of the 1950s.
I know more than enough people who were there and have a balanced view of the good and bad to know fake nostalgia when I hear it.
O
Ockham
Guest
That’s your opinion and based on the resurgence and applications to the seminaries I suggest you re-think your bias.
The bishops know which parishes are in trouble and which aren’t. They are not infallible.
Tell me, are you a lector, EMHC, or both?
A
aicirt
Guest
If they’re doing the TLM at the Vatican, I think all Catholics need to understand the TLM and be able to participate in one.
Might also be a good educational show for EWTN to explain a TLM as to what is happening on the altar.
I said in my original post that 40 years ago we were told it was the NO or nothing. Now we’re told the Vatican never said that. Apparently, there were many disobedient bishops and priests because the NO was the only Mass being said not to forget the changes in the interior of the churches. So let’s stop being disobedient and educate the laity.
There wasn’t any interest in the NO but we went. Trust me, no one cared about the people who had to adjust. At least those attached to the NO will have a choice. We didn’t.
“Why does anyone want the TLM in parishes that one will never live in and attend?”…to keep the Church universal and to educate the laity. If you are refering to a country Church where there might be only one Mass a Sunday, then make it so the TLM is given once a month.
P
pnewton
Guest
But that is not what makes the Church universal. Do you think the same sort of stipulation should apply to Byzantine, Maronite Coptic, etc., Rite Catholics? Do Eastern Rite Catholics need a TLM to this sort of educational experience? If so, then do you also think that all TLM chapels should also have an mandatory periodic Eastern Rite Liturgy?
I really think it misses the point. If one had one TLM a week the majority of faithful Catholics still would not be exposed to it yet remain just as faithful to the Church. In some places, it might be almost nil that choose to attend as opposed to attend another Sunday Mass.
A
aicirt
Guest
No, I don’t know that will happen. I could never understand why the TLM was completely dropped 40 years ago. There were many elderly people who had attended a TLM all of their lives having been told it was a universal Mass. None of us ever thought the TLM would be dropped.
I’m reading on these boards that some seminarians aren’t taught Latin nor the TLM and those that were taught have forgotten after 40 years.
If you are happy attending a NO Mass, I’m not stopping you. Once again, we’re now told the Vatican NEVER said the TLM should be dropped for the NO. But it was. One Church in my city is offering a TLM on a Sunday. This is the first time in 40 years that I’m able to attend a TLM. There’s an issue here of disobedience, and I don’t understand why it took 40 years to address it.
Why are you getting yourself in such a frenzy about? What is heretical about attending a TLM especially when it is being offered?
And I do attend NO Mass.
- Status