Help me work through this: Since the TLM is now back, why bother with the Novus Ordo in Latin? [Fr. Z]

[Brennan_Doherty]

… But also, the other point I want to make is that people do relate to different things. Wors lke ‘reverence’ and ‘worship’ can be interpreted in different ways. Don’t count me as a liberal on this! I just mean that when it comes to reverence, for me personally, I find I am NOT feeling reverent at, shall we say, ‘high style’ Masses. I just feel distracted, like you and many Traidiotnalists feel distracted by the Pauline rite. The trouble is the peole are wired differently and gain experience in different ways. That does NOT make on inherently spiritually immature (or spiritual mature for that matter.)

So any one rite is going to feel uncomfortable to some. It’s a given. A uniform rite means some feel spiritual uplifted and some distracted. God did not make us all the same. So, to my mind, to have a choice of rites is reasonable sennsible and since we have been given such AND given the pendulaum is swinging the Traditionlists way, let’s be gentle on each other and let us have our preferences as allowed by the Vatican.

… I’ve always advocated a high Mass early on Sunday morning for the ‘smells and bells’ crowd and a simple Mass with gentle music later on. Some of us are Pope Pius X, and some of us more like St Francis. Both are saints. There’s room to be the Church Catholic.

Thanks for hearing me.

Hi Jedinovice,

Well, first off, if someone did not like all the “smells and bells” prior to Vatican II, they certainly could have attended a low Mass where there would probably be very little if any of that.

And even today with the New Mass I prefer to attend one with very little singing since I don’t like most of the songs anyway.

However, my issue with the Pauline Mass has to do with its inorganic development and getting rid of or altering prayers that go back hundreds of years.

Oh, and you do realize the early Mass should be the simple one, and the High Mass later, don’t you?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

… Also, in regard to the old Mass being a mystery, I’m not saying the Tridentine Mass was incomprehensible to people. I’m saying that reform was needed because people were being excluded. In some parishes the Priest whispered everything, mumbled it and the laity just WATCHED the Mass - or brought their rosaries. That’s was well established fact. It was LONG acknowledged that the Tridentine needed reform. Ratzinger supported reform! Many though the Pauline rite went too far. Maybe - though I prefer to think the Holy Spirit is involved in the construction of any approved rite, in line with the infallibility of the Magesterium.

Now, does that mean the Tridentine Mass is an inferior rite? No. It lasted for several centuries. Indeed, it is back. But… while a minority LIKE the Mass that way, they like to feel the TRANSCENDANCE of God, the majority rather like to feel a bit involved. The considerations of Vatican II were that the laity should be involved, praying the Mass, not just praying alongside the Mass, with a greater focus on scripture. A lot of priests were mumbling the Mass through in 20-25 minutes.

I think, overall, the problem is that the Tridentine was abused, Vatican II brought in reforms and they were abused. It’s kinda the spirit of the 20th Century. Whatever the Church does is abused.

Particularly so in the US it seems. …

I would agree that the TLM has been abused by Priests who rushed through it, and that’s too bad and I hope it does not occur again.

However, just wanted to note that the Traditional Latin Mass has been around a lot longer than several centuries. In fact, at Trent, the Mass was merely codified, there really wasn’t any innovation going on. It is safe to say that the TLM’s roots go back about 1,600 years and if one were to time travel back that far they would essentially recognize the Mass.

Further, one can involve the laity more *explicitly *(I say explicitly since one can become quite involved with the Mass just by praying the Mass as Pope St. Pius X advocated) through dialogue Masses. Or, as I’ve experienced, have the laity sing the parts of the Mass appropriate to them as I think Pope St. Pius X also called for. And was also called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

“Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Hmmm…doesn’t sound like the Church Fathers envisioned the Ordinary part of the Mass being in the vernacular.

However, when you talk about a minority of people preferring the regular way the TLM was celebrated as opposed to today, that isn’t borne out by the statistics. There was a large drop in Mass attendance after Vatican II, which does not indicate that people prefer this new form of Mass.

Here’s an article on the statistical drop (which also included England and Wales:

unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Now, hopefully, we can come together, take each others preferences, look to HELP each other in finding the best expression of the Mass that people are comfortable with (sanctity is hard enough! Why work against your personality?!) If the Traditionalists would look out for the, I don’t know, ‘standard pew sitters’ and the pew-sitters looked out for the Traditionalists, wow, we’d reform and be a hot bed of love!

The point about homilies is WELL made! My complaint is far less the rite and the utter, utter mess our teaching in the Church is! Cor 'eck! I had to learn everything through the internet! The teaching from the priest is USELESS! I had to teach myself and now have to teach everyone else these days. It’s awful! If we concentrate on people understanding the faith properly a lot of the abuses would go away anyway! But I understand you have particular problems in the US. In the UK I would say we have problems with dying priests not being replaced and ineffectual priests. I think this about Cardinal Comic. I know him. He’s a god man, a real pastor, but he’s not media savvy and is ineffectual in the role he’s ended up in. He’s orthodox, but he’s not effective - not when dealing with a aggressive, secularist government that wants a fight. But in the US you seem to have had rampant disobedient priests with a radical agenda. That I don’t think we saw in the UK.

Anyway, if we take into account the fact people relate to God differently (because He, er, makes people different to His purpose) then we look out for each other. There are many factors in people’s lives that affect their spiritual walk and many different influences according to their personality. We can’t raise one spirit influenced rite above another without insulting the Holy Spirit!

We can, however, complain about human madness. Oh yes. But let’s not confuse the two.

I agree about the homilies. Just about all of them are completely forgettable and you learn next to nothing about the Catholic faith. I think a large part of the reason might be when, after Vatican II, the priests were instructed not to deliver sermons, which were about the Catholic faith, but to deliver homilies, which are supposed to be based on the scripture readings. So you get a Priest who is focusing on giving his thoughts on the scripture, and might not even be thinking about Catholic doctrine. And it is quite easy for anyone to say innocuous stuff about scripture–I’m sure I’ve done it as well.

Well, one can argue that one rite is better than another without insulting the Holy Spirit. It’s not as if the Holy Spirit was guiding the hands or dictating to Archbishop Bugnini’s committee. Doing what we did with the liturgy was a prudential decision of the Church and as such could be bad as has happened before with other prudential decisions (such as suppressing the Jesuits in a prior century).

In fact, it only makes sense that one rite would be better than another (and in my mind, better means more transcendent, lifts one’s heart and mind to God, gives a fuller and stronger incarnation of the Catholic Faith), since they are both quite different, even though both are valid. In fact, one can argue that the intention of the liturgical reform *was *to make a “better” liturgy, otherwise why attempt a reform? And I wish they had succeeded.

 

[CradleCath]

[sign][Our priests now walk around the congregation during the Homily and tell stories, as if that will get peoples attention. In the 7 years I’ve attended Mass at my parish, I can not recall a single Homily that addressed abortion, sin, hell, or salvation directly. Oh, they dance around the topics occasionally; but, never hit the nail on the head.

The Homily is the real problem we face today, not the language of the Mass.[/sign]

I, too, grew up with the Tridentine Mass. However, I really had no trouble understanding it. Perhaps that has something to do with attending Catholic schools where we were “taught” the Mass AND the English/Latin missals (with pictures) that each child received from their parish upon their First Communion.

I agree that the homilies today are pretty weak & I feel embarrassed for the priest when he actually brings props to use. (One giving a homily about “traveling” through life actually brought suitcases into the sanctuary…or what used to be the sanctuary.) But I think that the problems with the NO. go deeper than the homily. It seems to be lacking the mystery, the beauty, the reverence the transcendence that lifts us above the hum-drum quality of daily life & takes us to a sacred place. I’m probably not explaining this too well, but I’m having a problem staying interested in the Mass of today. God help me, I find it SO boring sometimes & I’m praying for help with that.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

[sign][Our priests now walk around the congregation during the Homily and tell stories, as if that will get peoples attention. In the 7 years I’ve attended Mass at my parish, I can not recall a single Homily that addressed abortion, sin, hell, or salvation directly. Oh, they dance around the topics occasionally; but, never hit the nail on the head.

The Homily is the real problem we face today, not the language of the Mass.[/sign]

I, too, grew up with the Tridentine Mass. However, I really had no trouble understanding it. Perhaps that has something to do with attending Catholic schools where we were “taught” the Mass AND the English/Latin missals (with pictures) that each child received from their parish upon their First Communion.

I agree that the homilies today are pretty weak & I feel embarrassed for the priest when he actually brings props to use. (One giving a homily about “traveling” through life actually brought suitcases into the sanctuary…or what used to be the sanctuary.) But I think that the problems with the NO. go deeper than the homily. It seems to be lacking the mystery, the beauty, the reverence the transcendence that lifts us above the hum-drum quality of daily life & takes us to a sacred place. I’m probably not explaining this too well, but I’m having a problem staying interested in the Mass of today. God help me, I find it SO boring sometimes & I’m praying for help with that.

I think you explained it well. I can understand where you are coming from.

 

[tcraig]

Also, in regard to the old Mass being a mystery, I’m not saying the Tridentine Mass was incomprehensible to people. I’m saying that reform was needed because people were being excluded. In some parishes the Priest whispered everything, mumbled it and the laity just WATCHED the Mass - or brought their rosaries. That’s was well established fact.

This was certainly not unkown to the hierarchy prior to VII. In fact, in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei (1947), he specifically addresses this:

1. Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men’s talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? **On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.
   **

There is absolutely nothing wrong with reciting the rosary during the mass, and I’m not sure why it has gotten such a bad rap. People are different, and they worship in different ways.

 

[Godi]

If we were wrong 40 years ago with too much emphasis on The Most High, the pendulum has swung to too much emphasis on community today.

There can NEVER, and I repeat never be to much emphasis on the MOST HIGH!!! If you want fellowship/comraderie and to be entertained then you go to the local pub.

 

[Jedinovice]

I’m out of time now. My internet connectivity is not unlimited - a good thing in the main. I had this weekend to post and now it’s over!

This is a forum for Tradtionalist Catholics who love the TLM. There is no way I am going to be able to persuade the posters here the Pauline rite is equvalent to the TLM. That’s not gonna happen. I’m not going to get into a discussion about the relative merits about the Pauline rite over the the Tridentine. For a start, if I defended the Pauline rite I’d be overwhelmed with contrary opinion 10 to 1! I am already locked into email debate with a Dawkinesque atheist at work, I’m writing up a trilogy piece for my community on the prophecies of the saints, and I have two people wanting detailed responses on the Christian reaction to certain form of alternative healing. And that’s just the writing projects!

Better I tackle those isses than argue with my brothers and sisters in Christ! I don’t normally post here at all but this one thread I felt compelled to reply.

My main point - that attendence at one Mass over another does not denote spiritual maturity, I think has been made and accepted. The only secondary point I would like people to consider is that we do have two rites now. So now people have a choice. OK, it’ll take a while to filter down, I accept. But the choice is there. Let’s not hang judgement on the choices other Catholics make and rejoice you have the TLM! As I say, the long night is ending for the TLM. Rejoice. Enjoy it. Just try not to make too many assumptions about us ‘simple folk.’

Cheers.

 

[SemiTrad]

My main point - that attendence at one Mass over another does not denote spiritual maturity, I think has been made and accepted. The only secondary point I would like people to consider is that we do have two rites now. So now people have a choice. OK, it’ll take a while to filter down, I accept. But the choice is there. Let’s not hang judgement on the choices other Catholics make and rejoice you have the TLM! As I say, the long night is ending for the TLM. Rejoice. Enjoy it. Just try not to make too many assumptions about us ‘simple folk.’

Cheers.

Yes! We do have two rites now, and hurray for choice! I also agree that attending one mass over the other has nothing to do with spiritual maturity. Someone mentioned that very educated people go to the Latin Novus Ordo, and that’s great.

The beauty of the TLM is that it is for us ‘simple folk.’ Go to mass, follow the priest to prapare to make the offering, make the Sacrifice, receive the Sacrament, given thanks, and you’re done. The Holy Sacrifice is a deep mystery which is made very simple to understand at the High Altar.

 

[bear06]

Yes! We do have two rites now, and hurray for choice! I also agree that attending one mass over the other has nothing to do with spiritual maturity. Someone mentioned that very educated people go to the Latin Novus Ordo, and that’s great.

The beauty of the TLM is that it is for us ‘simple folk.’ Go to mass, follow the priest to prapare to make the offering, make the Sacrifice, receive the Sacrament, given thanks, and you’re done. The Holy Sacrifice is a deep mystery which is made very simple to understand at the High Altar.

And some Novus Ordos are even done on a High Altar.

 

[jj2011]

Bob and Penny Lord.

Technically St. Padre Pio died in September of 1968, before the Novus Ordo was promulgated. However, he did get permission to say the traditional mass, and I think that speaks volumes.

 

[LilyM]

Technically St. Padre Pio died in September of 1968, before the Novus Ordo was promulgated. However, he did get permission to say the traditional mass, and I think that speaks volumes.

And the late great John Paul 2 didn’t. Nor did 95% of other priests and bishops at the time. But then of course St Padre Pio and his ilk are the only ones who could possibly have been mature in their faith - or right in what they did

Personal preference and comfort, folks. Not that I’m knocking in the slightest those who prefer and are more comfortable with the TLM, I wish them much joy and many more TLMs made available to them. I just wish they wouldn’t knock those of us who prefer, all things being equal, the NO

 

[CradleCath]

[SIGN]QUOTE=Brennan Doherty;3007208]I think you explained it well. I can understand where you are coming from.[/SIGN]

After reading your posts, I’m thinking you DO understand what I’m saying. When the Novus Ordo was first introduced, I accepted it with a good & positive attitude. The big thing where I lived at that time, was the closing of many parishes. The Church had provided me with a holy, uplifting Mass for 20 yrs. prior, I had no doubt they would continue this.
Maybe my disatisfaction just slowly grew…I’m not sure, but I do remember attending a Mass where my daughter was going to college. It was the Newman center parish & I sure got a BIG surprise. The Sanctuary was filled with middle-aged women, who were “demonstrating” the Great Flood. They flitted (as much as these large women could “flit”) around the Sanctuary with long, silky scarves. They would throw the scarf into the air, waving it & lower themselves to the floor as the scarf came down. This was to “demonstrate” the rain, I guess.
There were/are NO kneelers in this Church
My husband looked over at me with raised eyebrows as if to ask,
“Is this what we’ve scrimped & saved to send our daughter to college for, to have the so-called “intellectuals” turn her mass into a theatre production?”

That happened in the early 80’s & I suppose that is when my disatisfation with Mass started. Since then, it has grown…EM’s, greeters, ushers wandering all over the place. Talking, shaking hands, communicants giving high fives to their friends as they return fromceiving the Eucharists. HUGE gathering rooms, upon which were spent MANY dollars, instead of Church vestibules through which one entered the Church to pray the Mass…not to visit with their neighbors. That should come AFTER Mass, my parish serves Coffee & donuts in the Church hall*** after*** Mass. Why do we need “gathering rooms”? In short, I am finding no time during the Novus Ordo to just sit quietly in awe of the God who gave us the Eucharist. It’s taken 40 yrs. to drive me to the point where I actually leave Mass empty &, at times, angry. I certainly don’t WANT those emotions, but they are there. Please pray for me.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

[sign]QUOTE=Brennan Doherty;3007208]I think you explained it well. I can understand where you are coming from.[/sign]

After reading your posts, I’m thinking you DO understand what I’m saying. When the Novus Ordo was first introduced, I accepted it with a good & positive attitude. The big thing where I lived at that time, was the closing of many parishes. The Church had provided me with a holy, uplifting Mass for 20 yrs. prior, I had no doubt they would continue this.
Maybe my disatisfaction just slowly grew…I’m not sure, but I do remember attending a Mass where my daughter was going to college. It was the Newman center parish & I sure got a BIG surprise. The Sanctuary was filled with middle-aged women, who were “demonstrating” the Great Flood. They flitted (as much as these large women could “flit”) around the Sanctuary with long, silky scarves. They would throw the scarf into the air, waving it & lower themselves to the floor as the scarf came down. This was to “demonstrate” the rain, I guess.
There were/are NO kneelers in this Church
My husband looked over at me with raised eyebrows as if to ask,
“Is this what we’ve scrimped & saved to send our daughter to college for, to have the so-called “intellectuals” turn her mass into a theatre production?”

That happened in the early 80’s & I suppose that is when my disatisfation with Mass started. Since then, it has grown…EM’s, greeters, ushers wandering all over the place. Talking, shaking hands, communicants giving high fives to their friends as they return fromceiving the Eucharists. HUGE gathering rooms, upon which were spent MANY dollars, instead of Church vestibules through which one entered the Church to pray the Mass…not to visit with their neighbors. That should come AFTER Mass, my parish serves Coffee & donuts in the Church hall*** after*** Mass. Why do we need “gathering rooms”? In short, I am finding no time during the Novus Ordo to just sit quietly in awe of the God who gave us the Eucharist. It’s taken 40 yrs. to drive me to the point where I actually leave Mass empty &, at times, angry. I certainly don’t WANT those emotions, but they are there. Please pray for me.

CradleCath,

Thanks for posting. I’m pretty sure there are quite a number of people with experiences similar to yours who we will never hear from. I’ll say a prayer for you. God bless.

 

[Godi]

And the late great John Paul 2 didn’t. Nor did 95% of other priests and bishops at the time. But then of course St Padre Pio and his ilk are the only ones who could possibly have been mature in their faith - or right in what they did

The 95% of the other Priests, as you put it were definitely not Saints. Padre Pio is. It could be said that John Paul II recognized the disaster the NO had produced & that is the reason for the Order of Saint Peter. God forgive you for denigrating such a Holy and Saintly man like Padre Pio.

 

[LilyM]

The 95% of the other Priests, as you put it were definitely not Saints. Padre Pio is. It could be said that John Paul II recognized the disaster the NO had produced & that is the reason for the Order of Saint Peter. God forgive you for denigrating such a Holy and Saintly man like Padre Pio.

I say nothing against St Padre Pio - he had every right to do as he did. I want to know why you think it is a judgement on the sanctity of His Holiness John Paul 2 and the other millions of priests who chose to celebrate the NO that they made their different choice.

And may God instead forgive YOU for judging, denigrating and insulting NINETY FIVE PERCENT of our clergy as well as our former Pope John Paul 2

 

[KathleenElsie]

And the late great John Paul 2 didn’t. Nor did 95% of other priests and bishops at the time. But then of course St Padre Pio and his ilk are the only ones who could possibly have been mature in their faith - or right in what they did

Personal preference and comfort, folks. Not that I’m knocking in the slightest those who prefer and are more comfortable with the TLM, I wish them much joy and many more TLMs made available to them. I just wish they wouldn’t knock those of us who prefer, all things being equal, the NO

The words in red might be te reason some of uf feel you insulted Saint Padre Pio.

 

[bear06]

The words in red might be te reason some of uf feel you insulted Saint Padre Pio.

Contrary to what some belief, ilk means class or kind. It’s not a dirty word and I highly doubt that most on these forums, and definitely not Lily, would use a word they thought to be a slur against a canonized saint.

 

[Godi]

I say nothing against St Padre Pio - he had every right to do as he did. I want to know why you think it is a judgement on the sanctity of His Holiness John Paul 2 and the other millions of priests who chose to celebrate the NO that they made their different choice.

And may God instead forgive YOU for judging, denigrating and insulting NINETY FIVE PERCENT of our clergy as well as our former Pope John Paul 2

I will ignore your comment about His Holiness John Paul II. I did no such thing. However I do think you are confusing the Choir with the Achangels when comparing the your percentage of Priests to a Saint Padre Pio. AND if you are a Christian, ESPECIALLY Catholic you had better be able to JUDGE what is RIGHT from WRONG!!!

 

[KathleenElsie]

Contrary to what some belief, ilk means class or kind. It’s not a dirty word and I highly doubt that most on these forums, and definitely not Lily, would use a word they thought to be a slur against a canonized saint.

In a derogatory form. It is not used as a complement but as a negative describer.