C
CradleCath
Guest
Excellent question…one I’ve wanted to ask those who seem to be so afraid of the TLM.
- Status
A
aicirt
Guest
Before NO, you could go anywhere in the world and understand the Mass. I attended a NO two weeks ago, and it was totally different than the one we have in my home parish. It wasn’t only the casualness of the Mass, but the interior looked more Protestant than Catholic.
Those Catholics will be exposed to it if they chose to attend but they can’t attend if it isn’t offered. And if the Vatican is saying both are fine, then you owe it to yourselves to experience and understand the TLM.
J
JustaServant
Guest
I cannot let this statement go by unchallenged.
First of all the TLM predates the 1950s by quite a few years. Second. the current state of Mass attendence in the US is abysmal at best. The reason for any increase is caused by immigration (legal and illegal). Nevertheless, the state of the Catholic Church in America is the result of the liberalism of the past century. THAT is the problem.
But to compare the Divine Liturgy, the Sacrifice of the Mass to “gas-guzzling tanks from the '50s” is a very reckless remark on your part. The EF and the OF are the Mass and deserves respect no matter which you prefer.
That is real balance.
O
Ockham
Guest
Have you ever heard an immigrant tell of how intimidating it was moving to their new country? Different language, customs, not knowing how to get around, etc. Yet, the first Sunday they went to Mass…and felt like they were home. The same church, same Mass, same language, for the first time since they left their home country they felt like they belonged.
I have experienced this visiting other countries and going to the Novus Ordo Mass.
I guess the feeling is born of the knowledge of what exactly is going on in the Mass.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The TLM was never “dropped.”
In the years after the council, actually even during, liberties were taken to change the superficial nature of the Mass, people responding to the prayers, priest facing the people, introducing vernacular little by little, Latin was dropped from schools, etc. Very few announcements were made from bishops as non-uniformity became the new game, even from parish to parish. The period from 1964-1969 was a transitional period but no one knew what the final outcome would be. It appeared that the Catholic Church was really losing a grip, and this appeared evident when a more permissive attitude developed, meat abstinence rules were dropped, communion fast reduced, Saturday Mass counted for Sunday, artificial birth control became only a conscience issue, and so on. (It didn’t help matters that the Church was reported to be involved with lots of bank and sex scandals but that’s another matter.)
By 1967, it became evident that the liturgy was in a complete chaos. We just didn’t know what to expect when we went to Church on Sundays. The Novus Ordo was introduced in 1969 just in time to quelch this chaos. Personally, I felt it was sorely needed and was relieved that some order was finally restored. The rest you probably know about.
What the Pope did in 2007 with the SP was a very brilliant move, bridging the old world with the new. I think we should appreciate him for that. Though we may still have our preferences and only attend either one form or the other, at least folks on each side of the aisle should now embrace and forever hold their peace. Is this possible?
R
rein_me_in_Lord
Guest
Timothysis wrote:
“I think he [Benedict XVI] realizes his position as Supreme Pontiff better than you, knowing that there is much, much more to being Pope than just changing the liturgy willy nilly according to his or anyone else’s personal preference.”
But this touches on that which some of us older Catholics in this forum have been trying to convey to those who were either not alive in pre-VII days or were not of the age of reason at that time. The point is that it is absolutely, unequivocally not the case that the laity and the clergy were clamoring for change away from the TLM (and away from the whole spirit of Catholicism, for that matter). I cannot say that no one anywhere wanted to see a change in the Catholic Church (those folks have always been with us as a minority since the beginning). What I can say is that I never heard any complaining (a few overlong sermons excepted), and no one I knew of back then ever mentioned hearing any clamor for change. On the contrary, when the changes were implemented there was astonishment, bewilderment and jaw-dropping consternation in the pews—and in the Sanctuary, for that matter. We couldn’t believe it. We didn’t understand. Why would anyone do this? No, the changes were the result of a relatively small group of dissatisfied, cunning revolutionaries in the hierarchy who gained control of the Second Vatican Council, and who then craftily foisted on the unsuspecting members of the hierarchy present their own “willy nilly” idea of the way things should be. They were telling the Body of Christ, “We know better. Just do it our way.” I know that there are some who wouldn’t care even if they knew that what I say is true—they hate the idea of a pre-Vatican II Catholicism re-emerging. But for those who do care, this is the reality of what actually happened.
“I think he [Benedict XVI] realizes his position as Supreme Pontiff better than you, knowing that there is much, much more to being Pope than just changing the liturgy willy nilly according to his or anyone else’s personal preference.”
But this touches on that which some of us older Catholics in this forum have been trying to convey to those who were either not alive in pre-VII days or were not of the age of reason at that time. The point is that it is absolutely, unequivocally not the case that the laity and the clergy were clamoring for change away from the TLM (and away from the whole spirit of Catholicism, for that matter). I cannot say that no one anywhere wanted to see a change in the Catholic Church (those folks have always been with us as a minority since the beginning). What I can say is that I never heard any complaining (a few overlong sermons excepted), and no one I knew of back then ever mentioned hearing any clamor for change. On the contrary, when the changes were implemented there was astonishment, bewilderment and jaw-dropping consternation in the pews—and in the Sanctuary, for that matter. We couldn’t believe it. We didn’t understand. Why would anyone do this? No, the changes were the result of a relatively small group of dissatisfied, cunning revolutionaries in the hierarchy who gained control of the Second Vatican Council, and who then craftily foisted on the unsuspecting members of the hierarchy present their own “willy nilly” idea of the way things should be. They were telling the Body of Christ, “We know better. Just do it our way.” I know that there are some who wouldn’t care even if they knew that what I say is true—they hate the idea of a pre-Vatican II Catholicism re-emerging. But for those who do care, this is the reality of what actually happened.
R
rein_me_in_Lord
Guest
Wonderfully put. I have been to a few TLM’s said by NO clerics who are obviously struggling to perform a function that appears alien to them. That’s only to be expected, and I believe things will improve with time.
R
rein_me_in_Lord
Guest
Timothysis wrote:
“Ockham, I find it very, very hard to believe that you can be so disingenuous.”
The implication of the above quote is that Timothysis is inclined to believe that Ockham is ingenuous. Could we be making headway here?
“Ockham, I find it very, very hard to believe that you can be so disingenuous.”
The implication of the above quote is that Timothysis is inclined to believe that Ockham is ingenuous. Could we be making headway here?
F
franklinf
Guest
Don’t know how to break up the quotes, so numbered it instead. Sorry if its confusing.
- Me and my type? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Your whole post’s tone is unwarranted and lacks respect. My type are simply Catholics who live, pray, and believe as the Church has for hundreds upon hundreds of years. For your sake, I would hope you consider yourself part of “my type.” And private person or not, he still wrote it.
- This attack is unwarranted and detracts from the issue. I never said the liturgy should be changed willy nilly. Although ironically that is what happened in 1969…
- Interest should have nothing to do with accurate translations. If the Church is using that missal, then the laity should have proper translations. Its about time anyways.
- This part confuses me. In a critique on the NO he called it a banal, on the spot fabrication. That isn’t high praise.
- Prayers and rubrics. You can not compare them side to side and say they are the same. It would be ludicrous to say otherwise. I am not saying that any one rite is better. I am saying that within the Latin Rite the two forms of expression are different.
R
rein_me_in_Lord
Guest
“Do you think the same sort of stipulation should apply to Byzantine, Maronite Coptic, etc., Rite Catholics?”
Why should it, pnewton? We’re talking about Latin Rite here.
Why should it, pnewton? We’re talking about Latin Rite here.
R
rein_me_in_Lord
Guest
So, you see, it was all just an accident. There were no surreptitious machinations on the part of certain Vatican II operatives to craft council documents in such an ambiguous way that, eventually, a new religion would emerge to replace the old oppressive one, a new religion which those operatives just knew would be so much better than the old one. No, it was all just coincidence that things turned out the way they did? Hmmm?The TLM was never “dropped.”
In the years after the council, actually even during, liberties were taken to change the superficial nature of the Mass, people responding to the prayers, priest facing the people, introducing vernacular little by little, Latin was dropped from schools, etc. Very few announcements were made from bishops as non-uniformity became the new game, even from parish to parish. The period from 1964-1969 was a transitional period but no one knew what the final outcome would be. It appeared that the Catholic Church was really losing a grip, and this appeared evident when a more permissive attitude developed, meat abstinence rules were dropped, communion fast reduced, Saturday Mass counted for Sunday, artificial birth control became only a conscience issue, and so on. (It didn’t help matters that the Church was reported to be involved with lots of bank and sex scandals but that’s another matter.)
By 1967, it became evident that the liturgy was in a complete chaos. We just didn’t know what to expect when we went to Church on Sundays. The Novus Ordo was introduced in 1969 just in time to quelch this chaos. Personally, I felt it was sorely needed and was relieved that some order was finally restored. The rest you probably know about.
What the Pope did in 2007 with the SP was a very brilliant move, bridging the old world with the new. I think we should appreciate him for that. Though we may still have our preferences and only attend either one form or the other, at least folks on each side of the aisle should now embrace and forever hold their peace. Is this possible?
I am going to believe that someone forsaw dissent coming and gave the people a forum on which to dissent without damaging the true traditions.
Once it blows over, tradition will reassert itself.
A
aicirt
Guest
IMO, the changes should never have gone as far as they went. Someone should have been asking why Protestants were invited and why they would have any (name removed by moderator)ut. Someone, like the Pope, should have said NO we’re not putting the Tabernacle off to the side, we’re not having the altar rails and confessionals removed etc. I was raised to believe the Pope had the final say. Apparently, I was wrong. Supposedly, Paul VI was driven to tears. What was stopping him from stopping the changes?
The people were not given a forum. One more time, we were told this was it. I would have thought then when I was in my 20s that the pastor would have asked the laity considering we are now told that none of these changes were mandatory. The changes were made because we were told they were mandatory.
Consider too that many spent generations in one Church and had contributed to the purchase of altars, statues, railings, confessionals etc. Then one fine day without any consultations with those who had and were supporting the local Church, these things were removed. You were brought up to give to the Church. Hard earned money went into the purchases. Then, the Church no longer found it important. Doesn’t make for warm fuzzies.
Having been told this, and discovering otherwise, many faithful are driven right back into Tradition.
I have been witness to the worst that abuse has to offer, and I have also been witness to one tradition after another being brought back.
It was not so long ago in my own church that the Tabernacle was off to some side room. It has been brought back where it should be.
It was not so long ago that the entire parish held hands when they prayed the Our Father…now it is closer to 50%. I doubt we will ever get rid of that completely.
And our priest has begun saying Mass in both Latin and English at every Mass.
First the Latin, followed quickly by an English translation for those that have not had the benefit of a Latin education.
The tradition that many feel was denied them for these past decades is that much more desired for its abscence.
I do not believe the Novus Ordo will ever go away, nor would I want it to.
But I do believe that the TLM and the Novus Ordo will have a lot more similarity before this is all overwith.
F
franklinf
Guest
Perhaps b/c the goal was to, “strip from our … Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” (Fr. Bugnini).
F
franklinf
Guest
What about the actual prayers and rubrics? What about the actual actions of the priest? You need to look beyond the “smells and bells” to the prayers of the Mass.
I can not understand why you deny a difference between the TLM and the NO. If there is no difference, then why was the NO promulgated?
"Father Joseph Gelineau, is described by Archbishop Bugnini as one of the “great masters of the international liturgical world”…
"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. It has been destroyed.” "
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-bug.htm
R
rein_me_in_Lord
Guest
:twocents: duly noted.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Unbelievable. So the whole premise of your dissatisfaction is simply the fact that the OF and the EF are just “different” in terms of the prayers that they contain? Then I suppose I must concede that point, regardless of the lack of importance in it. Obviously both forms contain differences in that the exact same words are not used in both missals, but both missals do contain all that the Church has constantly taught and held about the Mass. The OF missal is the same as the EF missal in the fact that they are both distinctly catholic; they both do what the Church, through Her apostolic authority, intends them to do, and that is to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They are “the same” in the fact that they accomplish the same goal, the consecration of bread and wine in to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. To complain that one lacks the flowery language of the other and is, therefore, somehow deficient is superficial at best and ignorant at worst.
This reminds me of protestant objections of prayers to the Blessed Mother, saying why pray to Her when we can go straight to Jesus? They fail to see that all roads lead to Christ. In the same way, both the OF and the EF lead to the same place.
T
Timothysis
Guest
The Remnant? No, thank you.
Tell me; if I told you that the Tridentine Missal was, when promulgated in 1570, a “new rite,” would you agree? Because that is exactly what Pope Pius V called it in Quo Primum; “this new rite.” So, even if I were to take the information you supplied from a dubious source as legitimate, it raises the issue as to whether the same action has happened in the past. Father Joseph Gelineau may have been speaking his own opinion when saying “the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists,” but Pope Pius V himself in an apostolic constitution declared the Tridentine Missal a “new rite.” So, where do we go from here???
- Status