T
tcm22
Guest
More importantly, the Church says he’s wrong. Somehow that message continually gets lost in these debates.
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Some people take their opinion over what the Church Teaches. They make themselves the ultimate authority.
That is the root of protestantism, which is alive and well to this very day.
L
Layman
Guest
Well, I invite ye to ‘compare and contrast’ the changes, starting with the big one; a new Mass. A … new … mass. Very daring. By cardinals or bishops or lone mystics now on track for canonisation? Ummm, I don’t think so(?)
Then: table altars, church renovations, moved tabernacles, lay lectors, priest versus-populum, folksy hymns, CITH and EMHCs. The common thread: more laymen to the fore and the priest facing the laymen.
I don’t think you can convey a sense of the sacred and set apart while simultaneously trying to play down the mystical and hierarchial elements and playing up the personal.
e.g. Mrs. Goodlady, who I know well, in her Sunday best (or not!), up at the front handing out the Host. Kind of cuts into the ‘Holy Sacrifice’ and ‘sacred ground’ ideas of the Mass.
A lady I know to see helps clean a local church. I saw her once almost hugging the side tabernacle. Even if she could get into it, would she be any nearer to Christ?
I think John The Baptist said: “He must increase and I must decrease”, which I take to mean neutralising egotism (pride); the self-importance of the personality.
I like the TLM because it doesn’t require me to respond all the time and anyone in my eyeline is vested and/or has their backs to me. Personalities are taken out of it. Hymns are ancient, in Latin, theologically sound and sung from the back of the church, in the choir loft. Less distracting and mimicing the archangels, above us, in Heaven.
Then: table altars, church renovations, moved tabernacles, lay lectors, priest versus-populum, folksy hymns, CITH and EMHCs. The common thread: more laymen to the fore and the priest facing the laymen.
I don’t think you can convey a sense of the sacred and set apart while simultaneously trying to play down the mystical and hierarchial elements and playing up the personal.
e.g. Mrs. Goodlady, who I know well, in her Sunday best (or not!), up at the front handing out the Host. Kind of cuts into the ‘Holy Sacrifice’ and ‘sacred ground’ ideas of the Mass.
A lady I know to see helps clean a local church. I saw her once almost hugging the side tabernacle. Even if she could get into it, would she be any nearer to Christ?
I think John The Baptist said: “He must increase and I must decrease”, which I take to mean neutralising egotism (pride); the self-importance of the personality.
I like the TLM because it doesn’t require me to respond all the time and anyone in my eyeline is vested and/or has their backs to me. Personalities are taken out of it. Hymns are ancient, in Latin, theologically sound and sung from the back of the church, in the choir loft. Less distracting and mimicing the archangels, above us, in Heaven.
L
Layman
Guest
A new Mass was made, which I understand was not the intention of the Pope that called the conclave. Then more changes to this new Mass, which were not the intention of Pope Paul. The old Mass was forbidden, when we are now told it was not. The mutations continue. Who, therefore, is obedient?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Yet a pope approved of the Mass. No pope is binding upon another pope on matters of discipline. The form of the Mass is discipline.
What people do with the Mass does not make the Mass invalid. If it did then there would be no valid Mass.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Not true. As I have noted before, Pope Paul VI saw the revision of the missal as the completion of liturgical reforms started under Pope Pius XII. Even Pope Benedict has declared that the Pauline Missal is one of the two forms of the same rite. Oddly enough, Pope Pius V, in Quo Primum, calls the Tridentine Missal “a New Rite.” Will you be so bold to allege that the Tridentine Mass was a “new Mass?”
T
Timothysis
Guest
Please show one example, just one, from the missal that encourages “people to focus on themselves and the other participants.”
L
Layman
Guest
No idea. I’m calling it like I see it. I’d guess there’s what’s written down and then there’s what happens at your local church. Depending on the diocese and priest, you may get a Mass in Latin, with chant, ad-orientem, with COTT, kneeling from the priest or one with a side tabernacle, EMHCs centre-stage, a band in the sanctuary, a priest performing face-front, in your eyeline, all the time and Communion into your hand from a neighbour.
The latter is way more common than the former. Odd behaviour at a rite with the intention to give glory to God, putting His creatures face-front, centre stage.
The latter is way more common than the former. Odd behaviour at a rite with the intention to give glory to God, putting His creatures face-front, centre stage.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
So then, your opinion carries more weight than what the Church says??
L
Layman
Guest
I think the problem is that a lot of the additions and modifications to the rite are not considered best practice by The Church.
The Church does not say that EMHCs should be standard practice, that priest versus-populum is best, that CITH is the norm, that folksy hymns should be used in place of chant, that putting the tabernacle to the side is a good idea, etc …
These things are just done. As they are not specifically forbidden, they persist.
My opinion carries the following weight: I can attend a TLM. I can critique the modifications to the Novus Ordo, in the light of tradition, in this sub-forum. I can challenge anyone who favours the N.O. to get a cheap missal, go to sung TLMs for three months straight, preferably including Easter, then go to a local O.F. Mass and report their impressions here.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Ok, I think I understand what you are saying now but let me test that.
You have no problem with the Ordinary Form of the Mass when it is done according to the Missal and GIRM, you do not like the “modifications” that are added on that Rome does not approve of.
Did I get it right?
D
DavidPalm
Guest
I think it’s fair to say that the Gregorian Rite is a much more full and much more precise expression of the Catholic Faith than is the Pauline Rite. I think that it is also fair to say that with the Pauline Rite very often comes a whole “culture” that is modernistic in spirit and is in many ways foreign to traditional Catholicism. Thus, it can indeed be said within the culture of the traditional Latin Rite (Latin, ad orientem, Gregorian chant, all male servers, no EMHCs, Holy Communion received kneeling on the tongue, the Roman Canon for the Consecration, etc.) And in this expression it exists much more solidly in the continuous tradition and culture of the Latin Rite. But it is very rarely so said.
More often it is said using a whole different set of approved modifications which then render it oftimes very far removed indeed from the continuous tradition and culture of the Latin Rite. A Mass in the Pauline Rite said entirely in the vernacular in what even Rome admits is a defective translation, with priest facing versus populum, with females serving at the altar and doing the readings, with Communion received standing and in the hand, with all modern music, with the diminutive Eucharist Prayer #4 said for the Consecration, etc. well then you’ve got a liturgy which is very far removed indeed from the ethos of the traditional Latin Rite. And yes, that does affect the way that people believe and live their Catholic Faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
It is valid. And at least in the Latin typical edition it contains no doctrinal error. But it remains a fact that in many parishes throughout the world the celebration of the Pauline Rite remains expressive of a modernistic culture and is little different in its externals from various Protestant liturgies. Put a bunch of unapproved abuses on top of that and it gets pretty dicey. It’s little wonder to me that the greatest growth area of the Catholic Church is the traditionalist movement, back to the venerable Gregorian Rite and whole distinctively Catholic culture that surrounds it.
(It also remains true that what the priest actually prays for is different in the two Rites. So if one subscribes to the maxim that you get what you pray for, then one can envision different “outcomes”, to put it crudely, when the different rites are said. But that would be the topic of a different thread, I think. But just compare the Propers side by side sometime and see what I mean.)
C
Cluny
Guest
<<I think it’s fair to say that the Gregorian Rite is a much more full and much more precise expression of the Catholic Faith than is the Pauline Rite.>>
I think it’s UNfair to say this.
ALL approved rites of the Church are EQUALLY precise expressions of the Catholic Faith.
Period.
Otherwise, you wind up saying that one Easern Liturgy is more “accurate” or less “accurate” than another–or either than the Roman rite, and this would go directly against the teaching of the Popes that ALL rites are equal.
I think it’s UNfair to say this.
ALL approved rites of the Church are EQUALLY precise expressions of the Catholic Faith.
Period.
Otherwise, you wind up saying that one Easern Liturgy is more “accurate” or less “accurate” than another–or either than the Roman rite, and this would go directly against the teaching of the Popes that ALL rites are equal.
C
Cluny
Guest
<< The Mass can be said without any congregation. This indicates that the didactic or lay-participatory element is secondary. >>
This is incorrect, except for hermit priests who MUST have permission of the Bishop to perform solo liturgies.
Otherwise, there MUST be a person present to make the responses.
This is because the Mass is not something said as the priest’s devotion. It’s the ACT of the Church–it’s something DONE.
This is incorrect, except for hermit priests who MUST have permission of the Bishop to perform solo liturgies.
Otherwise, there MUST be a person present to make the responses.
This is because the Mass is not something said as the priest’s devotion. It’s the ACT of the Church–it’s something DONE.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
<<I think it’s fair to say that the Gregorian Rite is a much more full and much more precise expression of the Catholic Faith than is the Pauline Rite.>>
I think it’s UNfair to say this.
ALL approved rites of the Church are EQUALLY precise expressions of the Catholic Faith.
One has only to put, say, Eucharistic Prayer #4 side by side with the Roman Canon, or the traditional Offertory with the almost non-existent alternate that was put in its place, or almost any of the Propers to see what I mean. I have to run to work right now (I’m on China time), but we could start a new thread on this topic if it was deemed worthwhile to look at specific examples.
Also, I think you’re not correct about the priest saying Mass by himself. This happens all the time, as a matter of course, no special permission necessary.
I
iamanea
Guest
And yes, that does affect the way that people believe and live their Catholic Faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Well in response, I find the EXACT opposite. As a baby, my oldest LOVED to go to mass with my wife and I. We never had ANY problems with his behavior. He was absolutely enthralled by what was going on. Of course, we trained him to know that we were going to see Jesus and encouraged him in his enthusiasim.
Now he refuses to go to any Church and says he does not believe in organized religion. Why? Because of the absolutely abysmal treatment he and the rest of the family received from his local TLM parish. All 4 of my children were VERY active in the parish. They sang in the chior with their mother and were leaders of the teen group. All of the children were ostarcized by the parish. They were told to get lost when they tried to volunteer for church activities, particularly my two sons.
While I am not accusing anyone of this sort of behavior and you can find plenty of hypocrites in your mainstream parish also, I have found this type of behavior to be quite common amongst the traditional Catholics I have met. One of the reasons my parents stopped taking my younger brother and I to the TLM mass we attended as youths was the extremely judgemental attitude of the majority of the parishoners. You either believed as they did or you were considered a heretic and they refused to acknowledge you in any way. My wife has experienced the exact same type of behavior from traditional Catholics she has come across on line.
Contrast that to the many spirit filled and humble people I have met through my involvement with the Charismatic Renewal within the Church. As I study Vatican II, remember my child-hood experiences and study church history I can honestly say that I am convinced that the changes brought about by Vatican II (NOT NECESSARILY HOW it was implemented here in the US) were very much the result of the Holy Spirit’s leading the Church.
One final point. There is a very basic reason why you see a larger % of people devoutly attending a TLM mass and it really has very little to do with the “aura of mystery and devotion” that comes with the mass - those who attend, attend because they want to and NOT because they have too, as is, sadly the case with the majority of Catholics.
As I recall my childhood days prior to Vatican II’s changes, I really see very little difference in attitudes at Mass between then and now. Except for a judgemental DEMAND for ABSOLUTE silence in the old days where now children (little ones below 5 years old) are allowed to be children and are welcomed at mass.
Corry
Well in response, I find the EXACT opposite. As a baby, my oldest LOVED to go to mass with my wife and I. We never had ANY problems with his behavior. He was absolutely enthralled by what was going on. Of course, we trained him to know that we were going to see Jesus and encouraged him in his enthusiasim.
Now he refuses to go to any Church and says he does not believe in organized religion. Why? Because of the absolutely abysmal treatment he and the rest of the family received from his local TLM parish. All 4 of my children were VERY active in the parish. They sang in the chior with their mother and were leaders of the teen group. All of the children were ostarcized by the parish. They were told to get lost when they tried to volunteer for church activities, particularly my two sons.
While I am not accusing anyone of this sort of behavior and you can find plenty of hypocrites in your mainstream parish also, I have found this type of behavior to be quite common amongst the traditional Catholics I have met. One of the reasons my parents stopped taking my younger brother and I to the TLM mass we attended as youths was the extremely judgemental attitude of the majority of the parishoners. You either believed as they did or you were considered a heretic and they refused to acknowledge you in any way. My wife has experienced the exact same type of behavior from traditional Catholics she has come across on line.
Contrast that to the many spirit filled and humble people I have met through my involvement with the Charismatic Renewal within the Church. As I study Vatican II, remember my child-hood experiences and study church history I can honestly say that I am convinced that the changes brought about by Vatican II (NOT NECESSARILY HOW it was implemented here in the US) were very much the result of the Holy Spirit’s leading the Church.
One final point. There is a very basic reason why you see a larger % of people devoutly attending a TLM mass and it really has very little to do with the “aura of mystery and devotion” that comes with the mass - those who attend, attend because they want to and NOT because they have too, as is, sadly the case with the majority of Catholics.
As I recall my childhood days prior to Vatican II’s changes, I really see very little difference in attitudes at Mass between then and now. Except for a judgemental DEMAND for ABSOLUTE silence in the old days where now children (little ones below 5 years old) are allowed to be children and are welcomed at mass.
Corry
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Well, now you’ve changed the rules. Your experience trumps any objective observations. Can’t argue with that. But my experience doesn’t correspond with your experience. Stalemate.
Now, should we discuss objective facts, or just close down this thread?
C
Cluny
Guest
The objective fact, whether you choose to admit it or not, is that all authorized Eucharistic rites of the Church are equally efficacious.
Therefore, there is nothing really to discuss here.
M
malphono
Guest
Unless I missed it, I don’t think DavidPalm said one thing about any “authorized Eurcharistic rite” (Eastern, Oriental or, for that matter, Western) not being equally efficacious.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Malphono is right (thank you). I didn’t say anything about efficacious. I said that the Gregorian Rite is a more full and precise expression of the Catholic Faith than is the Pauline Rite.
I also said that, more often than not, the two Rites become expressions of two very different cultures, one in clear continuity with the venerable Latin Rite tradition and one much more modernistic and less obviously distinctively Catholic.
- Status