How do you, personally, assist at the NOM?

[Spiller]

…If I were able to put these two concepts in a Venn Diagram, they overlap. Both reflect on the sacrifice and both include the meal. The difference is where one’s attention is drawn. Regardless, one’s attention is drawn to the Paschal Mystery.

JR

They’d be one circle…

 

[ProVobis]

It is almost as if an enemy of the EF started it, to make those who prefer it look bad.

ya think?

 

[ProVobis]

I consider myself a “tradtional Catholic”.

Something like a traditional revolutionary?

 

[ProVobis]

It is protected from error or invalidity

On what basis, may I ask? There were no EX CATHEDRA decrees nor was the New Mass ordered by any council.

Reason I ask is why is the Vatican so anxious now to revise the translations of the texts? Was something WRONG with the original translations? And if it were WRONG, albeit slightly, how can one call it “protected from error?”

Don’t mean to attack, just curious as to your responses?

 

[JReducation]

They’d be one circle…

I’m not so sure about that. The essence is exactly the same. Therefore there is certainly a circle there. But I heard a very good explanation of why the two forms were necessary by Cardinal Hoyos and he was the one who pointed out that while both contain the two elements: meal and sacrifice, the OF is structured to look like a meal. The “hiddeness” of the EF calls more attention to the sacrifice than the meal.

This is not a doctrine of the Church. This was Cardinal Hoyos explanation of how both forms are the same and different. When I heard it I thought of the Venn Diagram. It was just a random thought. I thought I would share it.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I very humbly and gratefully submit to “the prescribed way of thinking,” which is the teaching of the Holy Mother Church, namely, that there are two forms of Mass, and both are equally glorifying to God and efficacious to man.

To say that one form is “inferior” is a challenge to Holy Mother Church, headed up by Jesus Christ Himself.

Who are you to raise that challenge to Our Lord?

If you personally find the TLM more edifying, then that’s a different thing and yes, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and your preference in Mass forms.

But that is not what it sounds like you are saying. In your post quoted above, you clearly say, “I think the OF is inferior to the TLM or EF.”

In other words, you are saying that the Catholic Church is propagating error to allow so many Catholics to languish in an “inferior” Mass form.

And saying this, you expect Catholics to simply sit back and say, “Peace be with you! It’s OK for you to believe that our Church is teaching error.”

I think not. I think that one who hurls such a challenge at the Catholic Church should not be surprised when Catholics “gang up” and defend our Church against such insulting accusations.

The Church nowhere proclaims that both forms of liturgy (I’m not talking about the validity) are equally good. Thus Catholics are free to argue that one form of Mass is better than another (and yes, that is their opinion and opinions are only as strong as the weight of their arguments).

Thus Fr. Fessio of Ignatius Press argues for a “Reform of the Reform” which of course implies that the original reform was not particularly good. He is not “challenging the Church” as if he is coming against revealed dogma.

God bless.

 

[JReducation]

The Church nowhere proclaims that both forms of liturgy (I’m not talking about the validity) are equally good. Thus Catholics are free to argue that one form of Mass is better than another (and yes, that is their opinion and opinions are only as strong as the weight of their arguments).

I’m not so sure about the statement that I underlined. The Church is very clear that they are the same thing and that they both posess sanctity.

The Church is also clear that there have been abuses. But as Cardinal Hoyos said the other day in Nebraska, he remembers the abuses in the EF before the OF ever existed and he said that he lived them as a young priest.

Abuses do not take away from the sanctity of the liturgical form. They may be disturbing to the individual, but the liturgy is still as holy and efficacious as the other form.

This is what we mean when we say that one form is not better than the other. That one form does more for the individual than the other is undeniable. Everyone of us is very different.

For me, they do the same. But that’s not everyone else’s experience.

I hope I’m clearer.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I think you have a good point.

We always want what is novel, innovative (yes, the TLM is novel and innovative to those who have not experienced it), and unattainable.

Once the TLM becomes more widespread and everyone has had a chance to experience it, I think that the novelty will wear off and it will empty out.

I base my rather gloomy opinion on the TLM in our city, which has been available since the 1980s.

There is a respectable crowd on Sundays; I don’t know about weekdays.

But it’s hardly bursting at the seams, even though other Catholic Masses (NO) ARE bursting at the seams.

I respectfully suggest that Catholics who depend upon Mass “form” to maintain their faith need to take a serious look at their Catholicism. This sounds like Protestantism to me. Many Protestants rely on their “feelings” to gauge their faith. If they attend a church worship service that isn’t to their “standards,” they label it “dead” and claim that they got nothing out of it. Or if they are more traditional, they claim that they can get nothing out of the more modern forms of Protestant worship.

A warning–many of these dissatisfied Protestants end up leaving church altogether, and many of them end up living sinful lives with no thought of God.

There is a “t-shirt expression” that you sometimes see–“If God seems far away, who moved?” It seems to me that if you can’t find God in one of the Mass forms that Holy Mother Church has made available to us, it’s not because He isn’t there. It’s because you have your eyes closed.

Beauty is eternal, that is why the TLM will never become “old hat”. Thus the way the TLM became scarce was through suppression, not because both forms were allowed equal access and people just naturally flocked to the NO.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’m not so sure about that. The essence is exactly the same. Therefore there is certainly a circle there. But I heard a very good explanation of why the two forms were necessary by Cardinal Hoyos and he was the one who pointed out that while both contain the two elements: meal and sacrifice, the OF is structured to look like a meal. The “hiddeness” of the EF calls more attention to the sacrifice than the meal.

This is not a doctrine of the Church. This was Cardinal Hoyos explanation of how both forms are the same and different. When I heard it I thought of the Venn Diagram. It was just a random thought. I thought I would share it.

JR

This comparison makes sense. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I had posted a similar commentary on another thread, but I’ll put it out there again.

I suspect for some (especially converts) that “old-school tradtional Catholicism” somewhat represents a “new” religion or religious experience.

As a religious society, we have gone from the original Catholicism, to mainstream Protestantism, to Evangelical Bible Christianism, and now perhaps BACK to old-school traditional Catholicsim?

Not trying to paint everyone with a broad brush. Obviously it doesn’t apply to everyone. But from what I read here, a significant core of “new tradtional Catholics” are converts and teenagers, many of whom are looking for something new (to them) and different.

Kind of like the cycles in car and clothing styles. Keep that old shirt or blouse long enough, and it comes back in style.

Maybe it works for Church too?

I would submit, as a convert myself, that the attraction of many to the TLM goes far beyond it being new or novel. Not only the young, but many are looking for beauty, depth, reverence, and a sense of the sacred which is why they end up attracted to the TLM.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’m not so sure about the statement that I underlined. The Church is very clear that they are the same thing and that they both posess sanctity.

The Church is also clear that there have been abuses. But as Cardinal Hoyos said the other day in Nebraska, he remembers the abuses in the EF before the OF ever existed and he said that he lived them as a young priest.

Abuses do not take away from the sanctity of the liturgical form. They may be disturbing to the individual, but the liturgy is still as holy and efficacious as the other form.

This is what we mean when we say that one form is not better than the other. That one form does more for the individual than the other is undeniable. Everyone of us is very different.

For me, they do the same. But that’s not everyone else’s experience.

I hope I’m clearer.

JR

Hi JR,

Well, I personally avoid talking about abuses because I think regardless of which form of Mass one thinks is better, all should want either form to be abuse free. So when I speak of the two, I am talking about both without the abuses.

Of couse they are both valid Masses, but as you know, there have been numerous articles and books written by people who do seem to have a very good grasp of liturgy and its purposes, who do argue that strictly speaking of the form (and not the value of the Eucharist itself, which is immeasurable) one is better than another at conveying the faith and lifting the people’s hearts and minds to God.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Definitely 1 - the Eucharist is the public prayer of the whole Church, regardless of the liturgical rite employed; private devotions are out of place at it.​

 

[Vanessa]

Really what I’m thinking about is how to make the experience of assisting at the NOM more like the TLM, when one can to some extent engage in private prayer (or whether it’s always best to focus on listening to every reading, saying the responses even if they’re badly translated, etc.)

How do I assist at mass? I particularly like to meditate on the crucifix during the creed. It makes the words cut to my heart. I like to focus on the words of the prayers during mass and be struck by how much my heart agrees, and how thankful I am to the priest for saying the words. I cringe at the readings, wondering which ones will burn my heart with conviction of sin, or convict me to act in some new burdensom way. Must be my scrupulousness, because normally they’re gentle or so inspiring, it’s no burden but freedom.

I particularly like the hymns with scripture, they help me to memorize it and make it part of me. I adore the consecration when I can gaze at Jesus before my eyes and offer words of praise or petition when the priest raises Him for all to see. I admit I am distracted at communion time by all the movement, wainting for my turn, the funny actions of the children. So I focus on the communion hymn words to keep my focus on God.

Anyway, that’s a sample of how I assist at mass. I have no idea if that’s what it’s like to assist at a latin mass.

 

[JReducation]

Hi JR,

Well, I personally avoid talking about abuses because I think regardless of which form of Mass one thinks is better, all should want either form to be abuse free. So when I speak of the two, I am talking about both without the abuses.

Of couse they are both valid Masses, but as you know, there have been numerous articles and books written by people who do seem to have a very good grasp of liturgy and its purposes, who do argue that strictly speaking of the form (and not the value of the Eucharist itself, which is immeasurable) one is better than another at conveying the faith and lifting the people’s hearts and minds to God.

I have seen and read such books and would agree that such is the case for some or even many people, I would also disagree that it is true for everyone or even necessary for everyone.

Someone like Bl. Mother Teresa was deeply moved by the liturgy, despite the changes in the form. She lived through both forms.

John Paul II was also deeply moved by the liturgy despite the form.

And there are many of us who are.

I don’t like blanket statements that say it’s 100% better or worse than . . .

Blanket statements can be too broad and not allow room for the Spirit to work through people in given circumstances, as if the form guided the hand of the Spirit in the life of Bl. Mother Teresa, for example.

There is not doubt that the form and the environment has a psychological effect on people that predisposes them to the workings of grace, as grace builds on nature. But as the great Mystical Theologian and Psychiatrist, William James said, more often than not the individual chooses when and how he will allow grace to work, not because grace is absent, but because the individual is not available.

By available he means open to the possibility that God will work through the circumstances in which one finds oneself. This is what Mother did. She did not like everything about the OF, but she believed that Jesus could do anything in her life if she opened herself to him. In the end, the form was not as important to her as the disposition of her soul.

One very interesting thing about her and her sisters that is very different is that they have a custom of “kneeling” in the Hindu position during mass. I’m using kneeling, because I’m not sure what the correct Hindu word would be. It’s that posture where the head touches the floor. That’s a requirement of theirs in their general constitution. Another requirement is that they pray the Liturgy of the Hours on their knees. They do not follow the Roman form for praying the Liturgy of the Hours, but the Hindu posture of prayer.

In essence, there is something to what William James said, grace does build on nature and therefore the form is important. However, the form that moves one person to intimacy with God may be very different from that which moves another. Therefore, a blanket statement that one is superior to the other is not quite accurate given what Mystical Theology teaches us about liturgy and prayer.

One thing that I remember from school was that we were always taught to keep in mind that liturgists and systematic theologians were not mystical theologians. What they said did not always accurately describe what happens in everyone’s soul. We had to balance between Systematic theology and Liturgy to find where the mystics really encountered the Divine.

In the end, it is the union with the Divine that is the goal of liturgy. I would like to see a writing on the form by a Mystical Theologian such as Fr. Dubey or Cardinal O’Malley. It would be interesting to read about the form from the other side, from the side of the soul looking outward, rather than the side of the liturgy looking inward.

Someday, when I’m rich and don’t have to work, I may do that as a retirement project. LOL

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I have seen and read such books and would agree that such is the case for some or even many people, I would also disagree that it is true for everyone or even necessary for everyone.

Someone like Bl. Mother Teresa was deeply moved by the liturgy, despite the changes in the form. She lived through both forms.

John Paul II was also deeply moved by the liturgy despite the form.

And there are many of us who are.

I don’t like blanket statements that say it’s 100% better or worse than . . .

Blanket statements can be too broad and not allow room for the Spirit to work through people in given circumstances, as if the form guided the hand of the Spirit in the life of Bl. Mother Teresa, for example.

There is not doubt that the form and the environment has a psychological effect on people that predisposes them to the workings of grace, as grace builds on nature. But as the great Mystical Theologian and Psychiatrist, William James said, more often than not the individual chooses when and how he will allow grace to work, not because grace is absent, but because the individual is not available.

By available he means open to the possibility that God will work through the circumstances in which one finds oneself. This is what Mother did. She did not like everything about the OF, but she believed that Jesus could do anything in her life if she opened herself to him. In the end, the form was not as important to her as the disposition of her soul.

…In essence, there is something to what William James said, grace does build on nature and therefore the form is important. However, the form that moves one person to intimacy with God may be very different from that which moves another. Therefore, a blanket statement that one is superior to the other is not quite accurate given what Mystical Theology teaches us about liturgy and prayer.

One thing that I remember from school was that we were always taught to keep in mind that liturgists and systematic theologians were not mystical theologians. What they said did not always accurately describe what happens in everyone’s soul. We had to balance between Systematic theology and Liturgy to find where the mystics really encountered the Divine.

In the end, it is the union with the Divine that is the goal of liturgy. I would like to see a writing on the form by a Mystical Theologian such as Fr. Dubey or Cardinal O’Malley. It would be interesting to read about the form from the other side, from the side of the soul looking outward, rather than the side of the liturgy looking inward.

Someday, when I’m rich and don’t have to work, I may do that as a retirement project. LOL

JR

Hi JR,

Well, we are in agreement that form and environment does matter and helps (or hinders) the receptivity of grace in the soul. And that regardless of the form, one should attempt to make their souls as receptive to grace as possible.

If, for example, someone were a prisoner of war and every time they beat someone they started playing Mozart, when the prisoner got out he might cringe every time he heard Mozart. Now, that does not mean there is anything wrong with Mozart’s music objectively speaking, but that subjectively speaking this might not be the best music for him to hear at church.

So I don’t have a problem with someone stating that one form of the Mass is better than another for certain reasons; I think that still allows that for some personal reason someone may have a negative reaction to it.

I agree with your statements about mystical theology, it would be good to get writing on the liturgy from that field. After all, as you said, one of the main purposes of the liturgy and sacraments is to draw us into a greater union with God.

I do like Martin Mosebach’s “The Heresy of Formlessness”:

amazon.com/Heresy-Formlessness-Martin-Mosebach/dp/1586171275/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214107846&sr=8-1

I’m not saying this is precisely the type of book you were speaking about, but he definitely moves in that direction.

God bless.

 

[JReducation]

Hi JR,

Well, we are in agreement that form and environment does matter and helps (or hinders) the receptivity of grace in the soul. And that regardless of the form, one should attempt to make their souls as receptive to grace as possible.

If, for example, someone were a prisoner of war and every time they beat someone they started playing Mozart, when the prisoner got out he might cringe every time he heard Mozart. Now, that does not mean there is anything wrong with Mozart’s music objectively speaking, but that subjectively speaking this might not be the best music for him to hear at church.

So I don’t have a problem with someone stating that one form of the Mass is better than another for certain reasons; I think that still allows that for some personal reason someone may have a negative reaction to it.

I agree with your statements about mystical theology, it would be good to get writing on the liturgy from that field. After all, as you said, one of the main purposes of the liturgy and sacraments is to draw us into a greater union with God.

I do like Martin Mosebach’s “The Heresy of Formlessness”:

amazon.com/Heresy-Formlessness-Martin-Mosebach/dp/1586171275/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214107846&sr=8-1

I’m not saying this is precisely the type of book you were speaking about, but he definitely moves in that direction.

God bless.

Thanks for the book suggestion. When I finish reading Mother Teresa’s journal I may order Mosebach’s book. I have not read this one. Have you read Mother Teresa’s journal yet? It’s one of the most moving works of mysticism that I have read in a very long time. It’s theology is incredible. But you have to dig beneat the layers of her writing to see her theology. If you have the time and inclination, it’s a good read. She does write a great deal about her mystical experiences at mass, but they are sacttered throughout her writing. They need to be colated into a single chapter or another book to make it easier for the reader who is interested in the mystic’s experience of liturgy, without the other mystical experiences.

check it out.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Thanks for the book suggestion. When I finish reading Mother Teresa’s journal I may order Mosebach’s book. I have not read this one. Have you read Mother Teresa’s journal yet? It’s one of the most moving works of mysticism that I have read in a very long time. It’s theology is incredible. But you have to dig beneat the layers of her writing to see her theology. If you have the time and inclination, it’s a good read. She does write a great deal about her mystical experiences at mass, but they are sacttered throughout her writing. They need to be colated into a single chapter or another book to make it easier for the reader who is interested in the mystic’s experience of liturgy, without the other mystical experiences.

check it out.

JR

Thanks JR, I may just do that.

 

[Cat]

JR, thanks so much for your comments. Yes, it is the disposition of our soul that determines what we will get out of Mass, or for that matter, anything in life.

Let’s look at the example of marriage. When people go into marriage determined to choose to love, they will love.

But some people go into marriage without this determination. Then something “bad” happens–it could be something truly bad like cancer or bankruptcy, or it could be something like the old toilet paper debate (out or in?).

Instead of choosing to continue to practice love towards the other, one or both of the spouses dwells on this “bad” thing and allows it to take over their marriage.

If the person doesn’t wake up and start acting out love for the other again, their marriage will either languish miserably, or end.

I think the same thing happens in Mass (or in Protestant worshp services–I’ve seen this so many times, and I myself have been guilty of it as a Protestant).

Something “bad” happens–the pastor is a poor speaker, a teenager wears a revealing tank-top, an elderly person talks loudly before or during the Mass, a cell phone goes off, a baby cries, the music is too modern or too old-fashioned, the priest says an extra howdie do that’s not in the liturgy…you get the idea.

And instead of choosing to love the Lord of the Mass (or of the worship service), the Christian dwells on the “bad” thing and allows it to take over the Mass (or worship service). IF the Christian doesn’t come to their senses and start acting out their love for Jesus again, they will always be miserable at Mass (or worship service), filled with bitterness and resentment. They’ll be consumed by a critical spirit that eventually spills over and affects other people (especially if they go online a lot!). And sadly, eventually some will actually stop attending Mass (or worship service).

They may shop around for another Mass or worship service, but it’s my opinion that once someone allows a critical spirit to gain a stronghold in their lives, they will find no good in anything. Even the purest, highest Mass (or worship service) will contain deficiencies (in their view), and the whole cycle will start again.

To me, it’s vital that Christians get rid of any critical spirit that dwells in them. It was criticizing and complaining that caused the Children of Israel to be banned from entering the Promised Land. THAT ought to sober us up!

I realize that there are times when it is legitimate to bring up true abuses. Yes, our liturgy needs to be kept pure and if a priest continues to add “a little prayer” here and tthere, it will become corrupt over the years.

But I think we should resist the temptation to find fault in everything, to keep a “list” of flaws in Mass or our parish, and to litanize about the failures of the Catholic Church. If we dwell on that “little prayer” instead of rejoicing in the rest of the beautiful Mass, we will eventually be unable to rejoice in the Mass at all.