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

[paramedicgirl]

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

Yes, I agree. Ilk does mean “of the same class” or kind," but even in the dictionary, it is used in a negative sense. Here are some examples from an online dictionary:

“I can’t tolerate people of his ilk”
“can’t trust people of that ilk.”

My favourite is when CAF members say to me, "Women of your ilk…(blah, blah, blah). Makes me think they consider themselves of a higher ilk than me.

 

[jj2011]

Point of personal privilege, since I brought up Padre Pio.

I mentioned the saint because he clearly wanted nothing to do with the liturgical reforms. At the same time, the saint was respectful in the extreme to church authority, and I have always heard that he got some sort of permission to say Mass in the unreformed rite.

Today, since the situation with the Liturgy is afr worse than in the early sixties, I hope and pray that more and more priests, and indeed all priests, will return to the traditional rites.

There was nothing disrespectful intended with my remarks.

 

[GaiaOne]

Howdy–

May I put in my 2 cents? I came in after Vatican 2. I had gone to church sporadically as a kid (my folks were nominal Catholics- I went with my uncle) and was totally confused. My first NO mass totally captivated me. I loved the music. I was enthralled by the guitar hymns. I could understand what was going on! I love the NO mass. I don’t know where I would be now without it, and I grew in faith along with many others. Remember, for somebody like me, the NO is the “traditional” mass.

That said, I can’t wait for the older Latin mass to be offered in my area. I bought a Latin missal and have been studying it. Can I follow it? No. Do I understand the parts of the mass? No. I still can’t even figure out how to get from one part to the other. But, I can learn the prayers in Latin, or at least familiarize myself with them. It is in both English and Latin, all the prayers and bible readings as well.

It like the idea that you can go anywhere in the world and the Latin mass will be the same. Latin is the universal language of the church. (Not that I ever go anywhere, but it would be comforting to know that I could attend the same mass anywhere in the world.) But, I also like being able to participate in the mass in my native language, the language I understand best, and think in.

So, bring back the TLM - I can’t wait. But don’t discard the NO, either - it would break my heart.

Sorry. My 2 cents turned into a nickel.

 

[LilyM]

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

Yes, I agree. Ilk does mean “of the same class” or kind," but even in the dictionary, it is used in a negative sense. Here are some examples from an online dictionary:

“I can’t tolerate people of his ilk”
“can’t trust people of that ilk.”

My favourite is when CAF members say to me, "Women of your ilk…(blah, blah, blah). Makes me think they consider themselves of a higher ilk than me.

I’ve got to apologise here - I absolutely did not intend to use the word in any kind of negative sense

Far from it - I have nothing but respect and admiration for St Padre Pio - and if I don’t love him it’s probably only because I don’t yet know enough about him.

Hopefully that’ll change soon, there’s an audio series about him on EWTN I intend to listen to when I’ve got some time over Christmas :getholy:

 

[peregrinator_it]

I feel I should apologize for resurrecting this thread just as it had quietly slipped off the front page, especially given that (in terms of frequency and acrimony of discussion) the TLM vs. Pauline Mass dead horse has been beaten, buried, exhumed, dissected and beaten again.

I think the reason the topic won’t go away (not just on this forum but in general discourse among Catholics) is because some underlying issues haven’t been addressed, and I feel strongly enough about them to comment even though this topic has been talked to death.

Fr. Z’s original analogy is an example of why this discussion won’t go away; it’s the premise of many who are attached to the 1962 missal, namely, the Pauline Mass is inherently inferior to the TLM. I (and I suspect many others) have yet to see or hear any convincing proof of this statement.

The first “proof” of this premise most people volunteer is that the TLM superior because of its reverence, Latin, and “smells and bells.” Fr. Z himself rightly points out that all of the above belong in the Pauline Mass; the fact that they don’t appear in many OF Masses in the US today has is not an inherent quality of the Pauline Mass, hence this “proof” is illogical.

The next item of “proof” often offered is that the vocal prayers of the Pauline Mass, make the Mass too focused on the congregation; the TLM is superior because of the lack of vocal participation on the part of the congregation. Well, I would really, sincerely, like to know why this is. To me (and I admit I’m no expert) vocal participation seems like a good thing- the only “proof” I can point to for this is that the other half of the liturgy, the Divine Office, is prayed (and has been prayed long before Vatican II) in the same call and response fashion as the Pauline Mass. Why should the same mode of prayer be good for the Divine Office but have no role in the Mass? Or if the issue isn’t the part of the Liturgy in which this appears, then why is it a good thing for religious to pray in this way, but a bad thing for lay people to do the same? I’m really baffled as to what legitimate objections there could be to the audible Canon and vocal participation. Every time I’ve posed these questions in discussion with Traditionalists (including the thread on Fr. Z’s site) I’ve gotten only resounding silence in reply.

I suspect that until the TLM can be discussed without some participants presupposing its superiority and/or this set of questions is fully addressed this discussion is going to continue to crop up.

Although this is already too long, I should say in the interests of full disclosure that:
a) I have attended the Latin NO for most of my life (I belonged to bearo6’s parish, though I suspect I belong to a younger generation than hers.)

b) I participated in the original discussion on Fr. Z’s site and came away with the frustrations you’re now reading reawakened by that discussion.

 

[GaiaOne]

Howdy Pilgrim-- (sorry, I just couldn’t resist).

I enjoyed your letter. It raised some really good points. As I said earlier, I was enthralled by the NO mass, and it’s where my heart is. I really don’t know much about the TLM. I remember very little of it.

I guess my real question is, why is there an either/or mentality about this? Both masses are valid, aren’t they? Both glorify the Lord and bring his people together, don’t they? Both have the celebration of the Word and the Eucharist, don’t they?

So, I just don’t understand why there seems to be this need to define one liturgy as better or more sacred or most whatever.

I don’t see why we can’t have both. People aren’t complete boneheads. They adapted to the NO mass, and those of us who grew up with the NO can certainly adapt to the TLM. There’s no reason on God’s green earth why we can’t learn and attend both. I certainly plan to do so.

It’s kind of like receiving communion on the tongue or in the hand. They both are valid, and either can be done with or without proper reverence. You just do what seems most proper for you. So I just don’t understand this mentality at all.

What is really going on here seems simple enough. The person who prefers the TLM thinks it’s the best. The person who prefers the NO (in Latin or whatever language) thinks that’s the best.

Which means, I guess that the discussion is completely moot and misses the point of the mass altogether - worship and community.

My only real concern about the “bells and smells” of the TLM is the “smells” part. I hope they don’t use too much of that incense. The stuff makes me sneeze. Just what we need to add to the liturgy…the sound of my machine-gun sneezing bouncing off the walls of sanctuary. ; )

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I feel I should apologize for resurrecting this thread just as it had quietly slipped off the front page, especially given that (in terms of frequency and acrimony of discussion) the TLM vs. Pauline Mass dead horse has been beaten, buried, exhumed, dissected and beaten again.

I think the reason the topic won’t go away (not just on this forum but in general discourse among Catholics) is because some underlying issues haven’t been addressed, and I feel strongly enough about them to comment even though this topic has been talked to death.

Fr. Z’s original analogy is an example of why this discussion won’t go away; it’s the premise of many who are attached to the 1962 missal, namely, the Pauline Mass is inherently inferior to the TLM. I (and I suspect many others) have yet to see or hear any convincing proof of this statement.

The first “proof” of this premise most people volunteer is that the TLM superior because of its reverence, Latin, and “smells and bells.” Fr. Z himself rightly points out that all of the above belong in the Pauline Mass; the fact that they don’t appear in many OF Masses in the US today has is not an inherent quality of the Pauline Mass, hence this “proof” is illogical.

The next item of “proof” often offered is that the vocal prayers of the Pauline Mass, make the Mass too focused on the congregation; the TLM is superior because of the lack of vocal participation on the part of the congregation. Well, I would really, sincerely, like to know why this is. To me (and I admit I’m no expert) vocal participation seems like a good thing- the only “proof” I can point to for this is that the other half of the liturgy, the Divine Office, is prayed (and has been prayed long before Vatican II) in the same call and response fashion as the Pauline Mass. Why should the same mode of prayer be good for the Divine Office but have no role in the Mass? Or if the issue isn’t the part of the Liturgy in which this appears, then why is it a good thing for religious to pray in this way, but a bad thing for lay people to do the same? I’m really baffled as to what legitimate objections there could be to the audible Canon and vocal participation. Every time I’ve posed these questions in discussion with Traditionalists (including the thread on Fr. Z’s site) I’ve gotten only resounding silence in reply.

I suspect that until the TLM can be discussed without some participants presupposing its superiority and/or this set of questions is fully addressed this discussion is going to continue to crop up.

Although this is already too long, I should say in the interests of full disclosure that:
a) I have attended the Latin NO for most of my life (I belonged to bearo6’s parish, though I suspect I belong to a younger generation than hers.)

b) I participated in the original discussion on Fr. Z’s site and came away with the frustrations you’re now reading reawakened by that discussion.

I would have to say that those who think the TLM is better than the NO (as I do) do not do so primarily because of the language or the smells and bells or even the inaudible canon (although I do think silence is golden). I agree that one can have a “smells and bells” Latin NO. I would say the primary objection is the dropping and altering of the TLM prayers themselves. I don’t know if the word “proof” can even come into this discussion as if we are discussing a scientific experiment.

I don’t know who you read, but I certainly think good arguments as to the superiority of the TLM have been made by Dietrich von Hildebrand (see my article link below) and others. “The Heresy of Formlessness” published by Ignatius Press is certainly one of the best.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I would have to say that those who think the TLM is better than the NO (as I do) do not do so primarily because of the language or the smells and bells or even the inaudible canon (although I do think silence is golden). I agree that one can have a “smells and bells” Latin NO. I would say the primary objection is the dropping and altering of the TLM prayers themselves. I don’t know if the word “proof” can even come into this discussion as if we are discussing a scientific experiment.

I know “proof” is inadequate- couldn’t think of the appropriate word (argument? that doesn’t work either) hence the quote marks.

Which changes/omissions in the prayers do you most object to, if you don’t mind my asking? I don’t want to debate; I’m merely curious. I know I’ve been involved in similar discussions with you; forgive me if I repeat myself.

Personally, (and I know my opinion is not expert) of the major changes I don’t miss the Offertory prayers at all, and I quite frankly prefer (especially) the new Confiteor, the new position of the Memorial acclamation, and the responsorial Psalm (definitely prefer a whole Psalm over the Gradual.) I might miss the prayers at the foot of the altar, and the reading of the Last Gospel I can take or leave.

If there’s reasonable ground (and I assume there could be) for thinking that the changes are destructive to the Mass, I would really like to know about it. But a cogent specific explanation is just what I haven’t heard from Traditionalists, even the intelligent and educated like Fr. Z.

I have just read the Von Hildebrand article in your sig. (I have read him before and never cared for him; I like his wife better .) I’m disappointed- he grieves that prayers have been lost, but doesn’t give any of the (hoped for) specific explanation. I haven’t read the Ignatius book- will have to look it up.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I know “proof” is inadequate- couldn’t think of the appropriate word (argument? that doesn’t work either) hence the quote marks.

Which changes/omissions in the prayers do you most object to, if you don’t mind my asking? I don’t want to debate; I’m merely curious. I know I’ve been involved in similar discussions with you; forgive me if I repeat myself.

Personally, (and I know my opinion is not expert) of the major changes I don’t miss the Offertory prayers at all, and I quite frankly prefer (especially) the new Confiteor, the new position of the Memorial acclamation, and the responsorial Psalm (definitely prefer a whole Psalm over the Gradual.) I might miss the prayers at the foot of the altar, and the reading of the Last Gospel I can take or leave.

If there’s reasonable ground (and I assume there could be) for thinking that the changes are destructive to the Mass, I would really like to know about it. But a cogent specific explanation is just what I haven’t heard from Traditionalists, even the intelligent and educated like Fr. Z.

I have just read the Von Hildebrand article in your sig. (I have read him before and never cared for him; I like his wife better .) I’m disappointed- he grieves that prayers have been lost, but doesn’t give any of the (hoped for) specific explanation. I haven’t read the Ignatius book- will have to look it up.

Hi perigrinator,

First of all, I would object in the first place to the entire concept of adding, dropping, and altering prayers the way it was done in a committee. Completely reworking the liturgy in a committee is not exactly organic development.

I like von Hildebrand’s wife also, and she shares the same sentiments as her husband regarding the liturgy. Von Hildebrand’s article was not intended to be a blow by blow critique of the Novus Ordo.

If you haven’t read the Ottaviani Intervention:

latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

that has some specific critiques.

If anyone wants a place to look at the changes they can go here:

latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

Personally, I definitely prefer the old confiteor and the new one to me is just another example of the “stripped down” nature of the New Mass which seems prevalent in the new liturgy.

I definitely prefer the old offertory prayers without question. The older prayers seem to speak more explicitly and extensively of the supernatural life and the chief aim and end of man, the newer prayers to me seem utilitarian, as if they just wanted to reduce the prayers to the bare minimum. It’s difficult to see any genuine improvement when comparing the prayers, probably because the attitude of Archbishop Bugnini’s committee was to prune and chop whatever they deemed inefficient. But, as I said, anyone can go to the link above and see the differences. At least they are obvious.

 

[GaiaOne]

Sorry Sportsfans.

I still don’t get it.

I have been following this thread, read all the positions, and still don’t get it.

Why do you folks have such a need to rate the liturgy?
Why this need to declare one form the best?

I don’t get it.

You can’t expect a one-size-fits all liturgy. We have multiple rites within the Catholic church. We have multiple liturgies. So?

Whichever one brings a person to Christ is fine. For all the bellyaching about the NO mass, I know a lot of folks who would not be in the church at all if the NO mass had not come along. I’m one of them.

Don’t you folks give any credit to the Holy Spirit at all? Do you really think that this change in the liturgy was out of God’s hands?

The TLM was fine. I’m looking forward to it. I love the NO.

Are you folks missing the point? The mass is for worship and community. It’s about substance, not form. It’s about saving souls, folks.

You all sound like the people arguing creation versus evolution. You get so focussed on how, you forget about why and who. They are not mutually exclusive…and neither are the TLM and the NO.

Do you have any idea what this is doing? Jesus said that you could tell a tree by its fruit. This argument is creating dissention and dividing the people of God. Sure doesn’t sound like good fruit to me. Sounds like a bunch of folks more interested in being right rather than holy.

Hope I’m wrong.

But I still don’t get it.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Hi perigrinator,

First of all, I would object in the first place to the entire concept of adding, dropping, and altering prayers the way it was done in a committee. Completely reworking the liturgy in a committee is not exactly organic development.

I definitely prefer the old offertory prayers without question. The older prayers seem to speak more explicitly and extensively of the supernatural life and the chief aim and end of man, the newer prayers to me seem utilitarian, as if they just wanted to reduce the prayers to the bare minimum. It’s difficult to see any genuine improvement when comparing the prayers, probably because the attitude of Archbishop Bugnini’s committee was to prune and chop whatever they deemed inefficient.

Thanks for giving your opinions. Forgive me for not addressing them (at least right now)- there’s been plenty of “my Mass is better” argument here already and I don’t want to slip into that. I do, however, appreciate your perspective.

It was nice of you to offer a link to a comparison, but I’d prefer not to use the one in your link. Any comparison is complicated enough without dragging the ratty ICEL translation into the mix; it distorts the changes and creates changes where there are none (ironically the Confiteor is one of the biggest victims.)

When I was speaking of the changes, I was thinking of the Latin- it’s the language in which I know the prayers best.

A blow by blow comparison with reasoned objections is really what I’m looking for. I’ve never worked myself up to reading Ottaviani, but I think I will now.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Sorry Sportsfans.

I still don’t get it.

Why do you folks have such a need to rate the liturgy?
Why this need to declare one form the best?

I don’t get it.

You can’t expect a one-size-fits all liturgy. We have multiple rites within the Catholic church. We have multiple liturgies. So?

Hi GaiaOne,

I don’t have a problem with the TLM and NO co-existing. Sorry if I come off that way.

Because I personally am attached to things like Latin and Gregorian chant, I often find myself conversing with Traditionalists, whose preference for the older form of the Mass I don’t share. I’m not trying to “rate the liturgy,” I’m just trying to understand what sort of reasoning inspires such statements as Fr. Z’s original analogy- so’s I can see if there’s any truth in them.

 

[GaiaOne]

Thanks P–

I appreciate your response. I was wondering if I was really there for a while. I felt like Keyar … “They no see me.”

I could see the problem if there was something of substance, but I guess it either is not there, or I am missing something. I mean, they are both valid masses, and they “do the job” so to speak. Is there something in the TLM mass relating to doctrine, dogma, or the eucharist that is different from the NO? Like I said before, I came in because of the NO, so I may not have all the info.

I really haven’t seen anything in the TLM missal that is different in substance from the NO, except that some of the parts seem to be more chopped up and spread throughout the liturgy instead of in one place. Lots of “secret” prayers. Some different wording but the essence is the same in both forms.

One thing I do remember from attending the TLM as a child was that there was a lot of rosary praying going on in the pews. Like people were keeping busy with an individual devotion instead of participating in the community worship at mass. Can’t say I was sorry to see that go. Private devotion just doesn’t seem to belong at mass. Before or after it is OK, but somehow doing it during the mass seems inappropriate to me.

Any information you could give me explaining the TLM would be nice. I would like to be reasonably well informed about it when it arrives in my areas.

Thanks again, P.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Thanks P–

I appreciate your response. I was wondering if I was really there for a while. I felt like Keyar … “They no see me.”

I could see the problem if there was something of substance, but I guess it either is not there, or I am missing something. I mean, they are both valid masses, and they “do the job” so to speak. Is there something in the TLM mass relating to doctrine, dogma, or the eucharist that is different from the NO? Like I said before, I came in because of the NO, so I may not have all the info.

I really haven’t seen anything in the TLM missal that is different in substance from the NO, except that some of the parts seem to be more chopped up and spread throughout the liturgy instead of in one place. Lots of “secret” prayers. Some different wording but the essence is the same in both forms.

One thing I do remember from attending the TLM as a child was that there was a lot of rosary praying going on in the pews. Like people were keeping busy with an individual devotion instead of participating in the community worship at mass. Can’t say I was sorry to see that go. Private devotion just doesn’t seem to belong at mass. Before or after it is OK, but somehow doing it during the mass seems inappropriate to me.

Any information you could give me explaining the TLM would be nice. I would like to be reasonably well informed about it when it arrives in my areas.

Thanks again, P.

I’m really, really, no expert in this area- there is a fellow on this board who’s got all the liturgical answers. Perhaps he’ll see this thread and chime in.

I would agree ('though you’ll find that others won’t) that in terms of substance of the prayers the differences between the TLM & NO are not huge.

(Disclaimer: this is my perspective.) To me the most important difference is in the nature of the participation of the congregation in the TLM. In the NO the congregation says the responses and some prayers and sings/chants the Ordinary (the unchanging parts of the Mass: the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei.)

In the most common form of the TLM most responses and prayers are said by the servers. The congregation is expected to follow along and pray the prayers of the Mass, but silently. The congregation may or may not sing/chant the Ordinary. The Canon of the Mass (the Offertory and Eucharistic prayer, including the Consecration, and the prayers which follow) are said silently by the priest.

There are other differences that will stick out to someone who attends the NO- different vestments, the ornateness of the language of the Mass, the orientation of the priest (usually away from the people.) Those who prefer the 1962 missal claim that all these differences add up to a greater emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass and greater sense of mystery and the sacred.

I don’t share this view, which is why I’m trying to pick poor Brennan Doherty’s brains.

 

[GaiaOne]

I’m really, really, no expert in this area- there is a fellow on this board who’s got all the liturgical answers. Perhaps he’ll see this thread and chime in.

I would agree ('though you’ll find that others won’t) that in terms of substance of the prayers the differences between the TLM & NO are not huge.

(Disclaimer: this is my perspective.) To me the most important difference is in the nature of the participation of the congregation in the TLM. In the NO the congregation says the responses and some prayers and sings/chants the Ordinary (the unchanging parts of the Mass: the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei.)

In the most common form of the TLM most responses and prayers are said by the servers. The congregation is expected to follow along and pray the prayers of the Mass, but silently. The congregation may or may not sing/chant the Ordinary. The Canon of the Mass (the Offertory and Eucharistic prayer, including the Consecration, and the prayers which follow) are said silently by the priest.

There are other differences that will stick out to someone who attends the NO- different vestments, the ornateness of the language of the Mass, the orientation of the priest (usually away from the people.) Those who prefer the 1962 missal claim that all these differences add up to a greater emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass and greater sense of mystery and the sacred.

I don’t share this view, which is why I’m trying to pick poor Brennan Doherty’s brains.

So, the differences are not in doctrine, substance, or function, but theater?

It still sounds to me like those who prefer the TLM think it’s better, and those who prefer the NO think it’s better.

Sorry, P, but for all the sparring going on, I still don’t see the point of the argument. Maybe it’s me. But, I sure appreciate your effort to find some answers.

I hear lots of heads banging against lots of walls in frustration over this. I think God must be shaking his head and sighing over us about this one. I don’t think this is an argument that can be won. I think it’s the same argument they had about whether or not to wear phylacteries. Same script, different cover.

 

[peregrinator_it]

So, the differences are not in doctrine, substance, or function, but theater?

I’d say yes, you’re right, but others would say that the differences in “theater” dilute the doctrine, obscure the substance, and wear away at the function of the Mass

It still sounds to me like those who prefer the TLM think it’s better, and those who prefer the NO think it’s better.

I’m attached to the NO, but I’m aware that my preference is just a preference (not a proof of superiority) - I’m sure that most people view their preferences in the same way.

Sorry, P, but for all the sparring going on, I still don’t see the point of the argument. Maybe it’s me. But, I sure appreciate your effort to find some answers.

I’m not in favor of the sparring. But I think an honest discussion of the reasons behind peoples opinions could be fruitful. At least it might help people understand each other’s perspectives.

To give you a concrete example, there was at one point a rather heated discussion about the value of the silent Canon and the value of silence in the Mass on this board. The discussion didn’t cause me to change my views, and it certainly could have been more charitable, but despite all the crossfire it really helped me clarify my understanding of silence, what silence is good for, and why people desire silence as a part of the liturgy.

 

[GaiaOne]

…I’m not in favor of the sparring. But I think an honest discussion of the reasons behind peoples opinions could be fruitful. At least it might help people understand each other’s perspectives.

To give you a concrete example, there was at one point a rather heated discussion about the value of the silent Canon and the value of silence in the Mass on this board. The discussion didn’t cause me to change my views, and it certainly could have been more charitable, but despite all the crossfire it really helped me clarify my understanding of silence, what silence is good for, and why people desire silence as a part of the liturgy.

Well then, all the more reason to have both the TLM and the NO. They both fill needs for God’s people. Perhaps this was the reason for the NO to begin with. People, unfortunately, need shaking up once in a while because as a general rule we tend to get complacent. That adage “familiarity breeds contempt” didn’t come out of nowhere. So, after a few decades of just the NO, many people surely have come to appreciate the TLM by its absence. While this certainly is not true for all, it surely is true for many. Happens to those of us who only know the NO, too. So, now we have both. I think it will do God’s people some good. Pick the one that speaks to your heart the most and brings you the closest to God. But, occasionally go to the other liturgy, too, just to keep it all fresh.

I also appreciate your explanation of what you are attempting on the board. Makes things much clearer. Which seems to be what God is beating me over the head with at the moment. I seem to be in a period of instruction, especially about all things traditional within the church. Which makes me nervous if I think about it too much. He usually doesn’t give one instruction unless he knows you are going to need it.

Well, God bless, and thanks for making things that much clearer to me. Also, thanks for taking the time to answer some of my questions. I seem to be in a perpetual state of befuddlement at the moment.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Thanks for giving your opinions. Forgive me for not addressing them (at least right now)- there’s been plenty of “my Mass is better” argument here already and I don’t want to slip into that. I do, however, appreciate your perspective.

It was nice of you to offer a link to a comparison, but I’d prefer not to use the one in your link. Any comparison is complicated enough without dragging the ratty ICEL translation into the mix; it distorts the changes and creates changes where there are none (ironically the Confiteor is one of the biggest victims.)

When I was speaking of the changes, I was thinking of the Latin- it’s the language in which I know the prayers best.

A blow by blow comparison with reasoned objections is really what I’m looking for. I’ve never worked myself up to reading Ottaviani, but I think I will now.

Hi peregrinator,

Well, if you know the Latin prayers best the Ottaviani intervention discusses the Novus Ordo as it exists in Latin, so hope that is helpful. Of course I think it’s perfectly fine to compare the two with the NO in the vernacular, especially since that’s how about 98% of Catholics who go to Mass are going to experience the NO.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Sorry Sportsfans.

I still don’t get it.

I have been following this thread, read all the positions, and still don’t get it.

Why do you folks have such a need to rate the liturgy?
Why this need to declare one form the best?

I don’t get it.

You can’t expect a one-size-fits all liturgy. We have multiple rites within the Catholic church. We have multiple liturgies. So?

Whichever one brings a person to Christ is fine. For all the bellyaching about the NO mass, I know a lot of folks who would not be in the church at all if the NO mass had not come along. I’m one of them.

Don’t you folks give any credit to the Holy Spirit at all? Do you really think that this change in the liturgy was out of God’s hands?

The TLM was fine. I’m looking forward to it. I love the NO.

Are you folks missing the point? The mass is for worship and community. It’s about substance, not form. It’s about saving souls, folks.

You all sound like the people arguing creation versus evolution. You get so focussed on how, you forget about why and who. They are not mutually exclusive…and neither are the TLM and the NO.

Do you have any idea what this is doing? Jesus said that you could tell a tree by its fruit. This argument is creating dissention and dividing the people of God. Sure doesn’t sound like good fruit to me. Sounds like a bunch of folks more interested in being right rather than holy.

Hope I’m wrong.

But I still don’t get it.

Hi GaiaOne,

I agree that it is about saving souls, which is why the liturgy is so important. As Fr. George Rutler has stated, the liturgy is the primary means of evangelism (and conversions have dropped significantly since the 1960’s).

Further, form and substance are inextricably linked. The form is necessary for the substance of what happens at Mass to be expressed. Which is why form is quite important and it needs to be as doctrinally strong and reverent as possible.

Changes to the liturgy are prudential decisions of the Church. As such, there is no guarantee by the Holy Spirit that the changes will necessarily be good or holy (though I do think there’s a guarantee that the Mass will be valid as long as celebrated with the correct form and intention).

Regarding unity, Fr. Brian Harrison has remarked that regardless of whether someone likes or dislikes the Novus Ordo, never before in the history of the Church has a liturgy caused so much disunity. God bless.

 

[GaiaOne]

Yep, there was quite a drop in conversion in the 1960’s. But, I don’t think that can be laid at the feet of the NO mass. As I recall, “dropping out” of everything was the mantra of the sixties, along with “free love” and all the rest of that rot. Catholics were part of that culture too, and not immune from its influence.

Yep, a lot of the guitar music, and dancing, and such that came along with the NO was icky. It was neither good liturgy nor good art or music.

But you know what? It could have been expected. The NO was such a freeing experience for a lot of people who felt, many for the first time in their lives, that they were participants in the liturgy rather than just an audience. They went a little nuts. That’s common to people who experience life-changing events. So, no big deal. Things calmed down. So-so music was replaced with better music, then good music. (As an aside, don’t forget that Silent Night originally was a guitar hymn.)

David danced before the Lord. So did a lot of kids, teens, and middle aged moms. So, it didn’t work well. It either was dropped or moved to a more appropriate venue. Again, no big deal. The Word and the Eucharist were still there. God was still with His people.

The charismatic renewal started about then, and it was a blessing to many.

The NO has been the root of a lot of abuses. It also has been the root of a lot of blessings.

“Fr. George Rutler has stated, the liturgy is the primary means of evangelism.” The NO did that. For a lot of people. I am one of them. I saw the change in our parish. It was wonderful. We had the “hippie mass” with guitars - three of them - and eventually added to that music the piano, trombone, flute, cello, violin, and a 6-foot string base called Goliath. But we also had a mass with organ music. And one with singing without accompaniment. Something for everybody.

You can see why I have trouble with this whole discussion. I saw whole communities formed directly as a result of the NO. I saw not only individuals but whole families who became involved in their parish and wanted to do more for God because the mass was suddently “relevant.” I know that is a cliche now, but that’s because the word was appropriate.

Also, I really don’t understand the use of the word “reverent.” Solemnity and reverence don’t have just one form. I am tickled to death that I can now receive communion in my hands. I just hated receiving on the tongue. I always felt like I was sticking my tongue out at God during the acme of the mass. But to receive in my hands, to be reminded each time I go to communion that the second half of gift-giving is receiving, that moves me every time.

I find as much reverence in the NO as in the TLM. Reverence, to me, is a state of the heart, and not all forms are reverent to all people.

People differ. God likes them that way. That’s why He creates individuals. Methods of reaching them are different. So, after the naturally enthusiastic behavior engendered by the NO mass, things calmed down. People do grow. Sometimes I think we forget that God knows all of this. You think that he wouldn’t be fully aware of this response to change by His people?

I think a lot of what is going on here with the return of the TLM is no different that the response to the NO when it first arrived. People who remember the TLM are going a little nuts at its return. They are naturally all excited. They say that it is better than the NO – just like those who came to the church because of the NO said about that liturgy.

That’s why I just don’t get it. The reaction to the return of the TLM will calm down, just as the reaction to the NO did. And it won’t be the end of it. I’m sure there is something else in the wings that is going to get everybody all stirred up again. Maybe it will be the liturgy. Maybe something else.

So we went for nearly five decades without the TLM. It seems long to us, but we have to remember that God does things in his time, not ours. And we have no idea what all this means down the road. In another hundred years, a seed planted with the change to the NO liturgy in the 60’s may come to fruition, something that God wanted that would not have been done by sticking to the TLM.

Maybe that change will save just one person. Maybe that change will save millions. Who knows? I sure don’t. But I am excited as all get-out to see what happens.

That’s why I just don’t see much point in this whole discussion of which liturgy is “better” or “true” or “more reverent” or whatever.

They are going to put on my tombstone “She didn’t get it.”