I'm at a loss: Differing Liturgies

[japhy]

Both hymns are beautiful, but fit according to the place the Mass is being celebrated. In my parish, we don’t have the level of talent and know how, to sing Gloria in Excelsus Deo as it should be. However, we do a great job on Glory and Praise to our God. Which hymn does God like better? One with classical expertise, or the lesser, which is sung in humility and thanks?

The Gloria is a prescribed part of the liturgy of the Mass. The songs in your hymnal aren’t.

So says you. The Liturgy of the Mass is Liturgy, regardless of your disrespect for who and how it is celebrated. Just because a Mass isn’t the old TLM, doesn’t mean it isn’t a liturgy with true worship of God.

His point is that the public worship of the Church takes precedence over the private worship. Thus, the Mass must be celebrated properly and with due reverence. If the people don’t like the prescribed parts of the Mass but belt out with more enthusiasm than ever the processional and recessional songs, there’s a problem that must be dealt with.

People who attend the TLM, are no more faithful or reverent than others who attend the Novus Order. Its the heart that matters, not the ritual.

I believe it is both the heart and the ritual that matter. You do remember what a sacrament is, right? An outward sign of an inward grace. That’s why we baptize in clean water, not dirty water. Your outward expression should match your inward expression; this is why some parishes have dress codes for Mass. I expect parishes that offer the Extraordinary Form have rules about shorts, t-shirts, sports uniforms, baseball caps, jeans, sneakers, tank-tops, etc.

I don’t doubt there are reverent Catholics at your parish; there are at mine as well (which also celebrates the Ordinary Form). However, there are also Catholics at my parish whose appearance and attitude and behavior at Mass leaves much to be desired. Can’t we put forth a bit of effort for our God?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The TLM Mass as we know it today, is the Mass that was celebrated by the early Church. The Mass evolved and changed over the centuries and wasn’t really wasn’t codified until Trent.

Also, since Trent, various missals were put out by different Pope’s which had a different emphasis and they too made minor changes, but also met with resistant from people.

A good friend of mine who is a Discalced Carmelite Friar, is heading to Rome to receive his doctorate on the history of the liturgy. A couple weeks ago I spoke with him about his thesis, which is a comparison of the Missal of Paul V, with Paul VI.

This priest was the spiritual assistant to our OCDS group, and he did a 10 part seminar on the history of the Catholic Mass, and how it evolved.

Anyway, after he receives his doctorate, he’s going to take some time off, but eventually plans to write a book on the subject.

Also, he said that he would get his thesis on line, for me to share with others.

I’ll be calling him tonight, for he leaves on the 20th for Rome.

I’ll see what references he can provide me with.

Jim

 

[Manfred]

And the Early Church didn’t have “churches”, and people were martyred left and right, and Christianity wasn’t even legal. Shall we revert to that? I mean, it’s how it was in the olden days.

The TLM is NOT only 500 years old; it has roots back to the 5th century. And it represented the logical organic evolution of the primitive Mass. The reforms of Sacrosanctum Consilium could have been applied without producing so different-looking a Mass; there are those of us who are hoping for a “reform of the reform” that looks to the actual documents of Vatican II, not the oft-usurped “spirit” of it.

Here is what Pope Pius XII had to say in Mediator Dei (1947) about this sense of “antiquarianism”:61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

1. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
2. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
3. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls’ salvation.

GOD BLESS PIUS XII !!!

“Spirit of Vatican II”? :nope:

 

[Manfred]

The Gloria is a prescribed part of the liturgy of the Mass. The songs in your hymnal aren’t.

His point is that the public worship of the Church takes precedence over the private worship. Thus, the Mass must be celebrated properly and with due reverence. If the people don’t like the prescribed parts of the Mass but belt out with more enthusiasm than ever the processional and recessional songs, there’s a problem that must be dealt with.

I believe it is both the heart and the ritual that matter. You do remember what a sacrament is, right? An outward sign of an inward grace. That’s why we baptize in clean water, not dirty water. Your outward expression should match your inward expression; this is why some parishes have dress codes for Mass. I expect parishes that offer the Extraordinary Form have rules about shorts, t-shirts, sports uniforms, baseball caps, jeans, sneakers, tank-tops, etc.

I don’t doubt there are reverent Catholics at your parish; there are at mine as well (which also celebrates the Ordinary Form). However, there are also Catholics at my parish whose appearance and attitude and behavior at Mass leaves much to be desired. Can’t we put forth a bit of effort for our God?

japhy,

Excellent rebuttals! I tip my hat and extend my gratitude to you.

“New” is not necessarily “improved”, as we well know.

I once read a “proverb” on a Salada tea tag, I believe; it went,

“Keep the old as long as it is good;
take the new as soon as it is better.”

:yup:

 

[JimR-OCDS]

japhy

The Gloria is a prescribed part of the liturgy of the Mass. The songs in your hymnal aren’t.

And I didn’t say that Glory and Praise to Our God, could be substituted for the Gloria, but can be used in the Mass.
Also, I use to sing a version of the Gloria, which was very appropriate, although not in Latin.

His point is that the public worship of the Church takes precedence over the private worship. Thus, the Mass must be celebrated properly and with due reverence. If the people don’t like the prescribed parts of the Mass but belt out with more enthusiasm than ever the processional and recessional songs, there’s a problem that must be dealt with.

And who says that Mass isn’t celebrated with due reverence, if it isn’t the TLM? The Pope doesn’t say so, for he’s kept the Novus Ordo the ordinary, not the TLM.

Your outward expression should match your inward expression; this is why some parishes have dress codes for Mass.

This is your judgment, which seems biased.

I expect parishes that offer the Extraordinary Form have rules about shorts, t-shirts, sports uniforms, baseball caps, jeans, sneakers, tank-tops, etc.

They’ll probably exclude sinners as well. So much for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don’t doubt there are reverent Catholics at your parish; there are at mine as well (which also celebrates the Ordinary Form). However, there are also Catholics at my parish whose appearance and attitude and behavior at Mass leaves much to be desired. Can’t we put forth a bit of effort for our God?

If you think that everyone who attended Mass prior to Vatican II, when we had the TLM was reverent, think again. I lived in that period and there was a conformist mentality of following the rules of the Church without question. Many attended Mass and daydreamed or slept through it.

The only reason why you have a more reverent TLM today, is that the mentality of the people attending is different than the average Catholic. The people who seek out and attend TLM’s, take their faith more seriously than your average cradle Catholic. However, the same is true for devote Catholics who attend the NO. When I’ve go to Mass at the Monasteries near my home, there is a marked difference in the reverence of the people, but this is because those who attend, are not the same cut as the average cradle Catholic who attends Mass out of obligation.

That all being said, its difficult to get an entire parish at the same level of faith. Pastors have to deal with everyone at all levels, not just the devote.

Jim

 

[Woodstock]

If anyone attends or has attended an Eastern Rite Liturgy, could you tell us whether it is closer to the Novus Ordo or the Traditional Latin Mass?

It depends who is celebrating it and which of the Eastern Catholic Churches it is in.

A person who is only looking for no female altar servers, priest facing east, incense, no hand holding, no EMHCs, and chant will say it is an approximate replacement for the TLM. Those looking for silence, stillness, kneeling, reverent listening, Latin spirituality, or western theology in homilies are likely to equate it to the Novus Ordo.

There are some Eastern Catholic parishes which are very latinized. They don’t necessarily follow their own rubrics or their traditional customs, architecture, prayer, or other historically eastern faith issues. These parishes often have a large number of people who use it as a replacement for the TLM, which I find to be ironic considering they are supporting the Eastern parish turning from tradition to be able to flee the Novus Ordo’s having done so.

Most people who appreciate the TLM say the following to me after attending a non-latinized eastern liturgy:

• It is too noisy. The entire Byzantine liturgy is chanted quite loudly by the congregation and there isn’t a spot for silence and very few places for reverent listening.
• It is too active. In a traditional parish, all of the children will be present at the one Sunday liturgy. People will be moving about, lighting candles, reverencing icons, and passing children from one family to another for a good part of the time. Uniformity in position or placement are lacking and they can’t tell what the “proper” thing to be doing at the time is. Then there is the frequent crossing and bowing, kissing, and processions going on, too.
• It doesn’t exhibit western theology or spirituality. There are no stations of the cross, the prayers emphasize Christ’s incarnation and not His crucifixion, and the homily will say things like Mary was equal to us in all things and why we don’t use concepts like transubstantiation to understand the faith. One person was scandalized when attending services for the Feast of the Dormition when Father talked about Mary’s death and pointed out the icon with her body on a funeral bier while Christ received her soul into heaven, depicted as an infant to signify her birth into eternal life and to provide a complementary image to the icon of the Nativity where Mary holds the infant Christ’s body to show God’s incarnation, thus completing the cycle of God becoming man so that man might become god.
• It is common or casual. By this they mean they don’t like the vernacular being used, which is emphasized in the east. Ethnic parishes which use Arabic or Slavonic usually appeal to them over parishes which use all or mostly English. They often don’t mind that Arabic might be the vernacular of the people as long as it is foreign to them. They also lump the movement, lack of silence or uniformity, presence of children, and generally joyous tone all under the category of casual.
• They like the incense, the iconography (though they disagree with iconographic theology), the vestments, the structure of the priest’s movements, the chant, the reverence given to the Eucharist, the fasting, and the iconostasis separating the sanctuary from the nave.
• They can accept some things they don’t care for since they facilitate situations they care more about. They can handle the a capella singing since it means no “modern” instruments. They can accept the Eucharist being distributed under both species via a spoon, as well as the use of leavened bread, as it means not receiving in the hand or having EHMCs. They can accept a married priest because it means having the liturgy the way they like it.
• The ones who do not desire to come back usually say they do not like that there is no genuflection, no organ, no stations, no confessional, no silence, no kneeling, no rosary, no western saints or feasts, that the icons look dour, that the music is too upbeat, that it feels “too exotic,” and that there is too much going on at once.
• The ones who usually are eager to return usually say they like the chant, the icons, the homily, the family-feel the people have, the joyous atmosphere, the prayers, the candles, and the incense. They usually have a harder time pin-pointing what it is that made them feel the way they did and struggle to explain that there was something there which touched their souls unlike what they’d ever experienced before.
  I know a number of people who appreciate both the TLM and the Divine Liturgy and a number of families who found themselves in a position similar to the original poster’s and found their compromise in attending an eastern parish. The key is to accept both the TLM and the DL on their own terms.

 

[japhy]

And who says that Mass isn’t celebrated with due reverence, if it isn’t the TLM? The Pope doesn’t say so, for he’s kept the Novus Ordo the ordinary, not the TLM.

The Ordinary Form does not prescribe less reverence, but that doesn’t mean it is always celebrated with due reverence. The previous Popes have pointed out, with displeasure, the attitudes and behaviors of clergy and lay alike. Pope John Paul II wrote about the abuses associated with Communion in the hand, for example.

“Your outward expression should match your inward expression.” This is your judgment, which seems biased.

It’s not just mine, it’s the feeling of numerous priests, bishops, and Popes, as well as other lay Catholics. How, exactly, is it “biased”? Do you think I mean that poor people can’t attend Mass if they can’t find something decent to wear? Not at all. What is biased about my belief in outward expression matching inward expression?

They’ll probably exclude sinners as well. So much for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That’s a stupid thing to say, and you know it. I will admit they exclude those in mortal sin from receiving the Eucharist, which is more than I can say for a lot of bishops and priests who celebrate only the Ordinary Form of Mass. It’s simply that at a Mass in the Extraordinary Form, some effort is expected of you to match your outward expression with your inward expression. You’re at the Lamb’s high feast! You’re at Calvary! You’re where Heaven stoops down – no, where earth reaches upward into Heaven! Dress for the occasion! Leave your cell phone in the car! Don’t chew gum! Fast before receiving the Eucharist (in a state of grace), for it is not ordinary food we consume, but the Body and Blood of our Lord! Pay attention!

The only reason why you have a more reverent TLM today, is that the mentality of the people attending is different than the average Catholic. The people who seek out and attend TLM’s, take their faith more seriously than your average cradle Catholic.

You don’t think it’s possible that the Extraordinary Form has the ability to help form and shape the mentality of the faithful that attend it? It sounds like you’re saying only those Catholics of a certain “level” of devotion attend the Extraordinary Form.

I am not saying there are no devout Catholics who attend (or prefer) the Ordinary Form. I have only attended one Extraordinary Form Mass in my life, although I would attend it more often if it were easier to do so. I prefer a reverent Mass, no matter what form. I just don’t always find reverent Masses in the Ordinary Form – I usually find ones rife with abuses and poor catechesis. I have the impression I’d be hard-pressed to find poor-quality Masses in the Extraordinary Form.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You don’t think it’s possible that the Extraordinary Form has the ability to help form and shape the mentality of the faithful that attend it? It sounds like you’re saying only those Catholics of a certain “level” of devotion attend the Extraordinary Form.

I am saying that only those Catholics who are at a level of devotion attend TLM’s today. They in fact travel out of their way to attend such Masses, bypassing parishes closer to their homes.

As far as the TLM creating a more reverent mindset?

Not necessarily.

Before Vatican II, people literally fell asleep during the Mass. They said the Rosary, read prayer books, etc. Sure, there was almost no talking in Church and what talking was done, was done at a whisper. But this was the same in libraries and school classrooms. Not so today, where the culture is less respectful across in all areas of life.

If the TLM were to become the ordinary, I doubt that you would end up with a more reverent form of Catholic at Mass, but would more likely end up with an angry form, where after 40 plus years, they suddenly feel disconnected with the Mass.

I hope we never return to the TLM as the ordinary. I hope and pray that Pope Benedict didn’t create a division in the Church because of his decision.

Jim

 

[Sarabande]

Suudy - Are you still there? How have things gone since you first had your initial post? Hope things will be worked out for you and your wife. I’m sure they will be. My husband and I have been married only 4 years, and we’ve had little ups and downs, but we get through them with lots of prayer and communication - that’s key. I know you will too. God bless!

 

[Suudy]

Suudy - Are you still there? How have things gone since you first had your initial post? Hope things will be worked out for you and your wife. I’m sure they will be. My husband and I have been married only 4 years, and we’ve had little ups and downs, but we get through them with lots of prayer and communication - that’s key. I know you will too. God bless!

I am still here. Responding to every single post would be a huge task, so I’ve decided to only respond to a few.

As for my wife and I, we have agreed on a couple of things. First, we will seek out more parishes. Initially we “interviewed” 4 parishes. Now we are expanding our search to include more so that we find something we can both enjoy. Second, we have both agreed to be completely open to the liturgy, and to maintain a positive attitude during the mass. I promise to focus on what I like, rather than what I dislike. And she has promised to focus on why things are happening rather than how (coupled with both of us studying the reasons for the structure of the mass including reading from Mass Appeal).

Having an argument, even over something as important as where to attend mass, isn’t really the problem. It is how we respond to the argument. Do we remain bitter and angry? Or do we try and resolve the issue and bridge the divide?

 

[Colorado_Mike]

IHe said to tell you to attend the parish that you are supposed to attend according to your diocese.

The diocese is divided into parishes, each with their own church. Which church you attend depends on which parish you are in.

Sometimes there are special considerations; e.g., in our city, there is an Italian parish and a Polish parish, and if you are of Italian or Polish descent, you are encouraged to register for and attend these parishes.

But you are SUPPOSED to attend and support the Catholic church in your parish.

According to the leaders in our diocese, a person is not supposed to leave their parish church for another parish church. If they wish to do so, there have to be serious reasons before they will be given permission.

It’s OK to visit other churches, to attend Mass at other churches. But your money should be given to your parish.

My husband said that you should just attend your parish church, get involved in whatever ministries you are called to, baptize your children there, and deal with whatever kind of Mass is there, unless it is blatently abusive and un-Christian.

Based on Fr. Vincent’s quote in the other response, then, I’m taking this entire quote as just wrong. Is your Bishop imposing rules that are not in canon law? My understanding is you can even be registered at more than one parish (I am). If this were in fact true, every church in the major cities would have vanished by now.

 

[Cat]

Based on Fr. Vincent’s quote in the other response, then, I’m taking this entire quote as just wrong. Is your Bishop imposing rules that are not in canon law? My understanding is you can even be registered at more than one parish (I am). If this were in fact true, every church in the major cities would have vanished by now.

I am probably wrong, since I am not a cradle Catholic. But this is what we were taught in RCIA by the priests, deacons, and lay leaders. The issues of attending parochial school were discussed, since many of the couples in our RCIA were couples with young children.

I would be very interested in learning the truth about this question, if someone has more information. I know that people can register at different parishes, but according to our priests, it has to be done properly. There has to be a good reason why a family doesn’t attend their neighborhood parish.

Perhaps the dioceses are different about this?

Please, if anyone has more information, post it. I think it is pertinent to the OP’s questions, but perhaps it should be in a separate thread.

 

[Sarabande]

As for my wife and I, we have agreed on a couple of things. First, we will seek out more parishes. Initially we “interviewed” 4 parishes. Now we are expanding our search to include more so that we find something we can both enjoy. Second, we have both agreed to be completely open to the liturgy, and to maintain a positive attitude during the mass. I promise to focus on what I like, rather than what I dislike. And she has promised to focus on why things are happening rather than how (coupled with both of us studying the reasons for the structure of the mass including reading from Mass Appeal).

Having an argument, even over something as important as where to attend mass, isn’t really the problem. It is how we respond to the argument. Do we remain bitter and angry? Or do we try and resolve the issue and bridge the divide?

This is so wonderful!!! I’m glad that things have worked out. And what you say about how we respond to arguments is so true. Everyone has them - there’s something unhealthy if we don’t. Actually, sometimes when my husband and I argue, one of us gets to the point where we see how silly it is and we just start laughing. It cools things down and we are able to really resolve the “problem”.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

REMINDER

The Traditional Catholic Forum exists for those who prefer that form of practice. Do not hijack this thread with trying to offer comparisons or debate one form versus the other or the thread will be closed.