P
pnewton
Guest
Wow. I just bought it and have worked through about the first 50 pages or so. I specifically bought it to get to “know” our new pope somewhat.
- Status
P
palmas85
Guest
What exactly are you asking for? The poll makes no sense, even less than several of mine did in retrospect.
M
mosher
Guest
Pay close attention to the sections that speak about the Cosmic relation and the Escatalogical aspects of the liturgy.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Andreas Hofer:
I am fortunate or odd, one of the two. I was recieved into the Church by Carmelites who celebrated the Mass of Paul VI reverently and attentively. I attend a parish now where the pastor is hard nosed about the liturgy. I’ve seen a few abuses (ask me about a Mass I attended at Holy Cross Church in Santa Cruz, California this summer on vacation
), but by and large, the Masses I have attended have been reverently offered. This is the Mass that I was recieved into the Church with and I love it. I should be willing to give the Tridentine Mass a chance, but I find I’m really not, because of the attitudes I see expressed by so many who are devoted to it (for example, one person in this very thread cited lighting the wrong number of candles as an abuse! To me, this is absolute nitpicking!!! Who counts candles?!?!?!). Some, not all, but some (and by that I mean MOST) speak of their preference with such a sense of triumphalism, such a sense of propriety, that one would think that the Tridentine Mass had been their idea, their own little brain storm. I go to Mass thinking of my sins, my unworthiness, and the Grace that allows me to attend upon Him, and I sometimes weep to rec. Him in Communion. If the Tridentine Mass is the country club of self-congratulation and smug piety that some of it’s proponents make it sound like, then I fear you will have to count me out, unless it again became the normative Mass of the Church, and then…well, then, I would spend the rest of my life mourning not being able to hear the precious words of consecration and not being able to regularly rec. the Most Precious Blood from the Chalice, not to mention the really odd bit (to me, anyway) about the lessons being proclaimed in both Latin and the vernacular (as if God needed to hear them in the first place or as if He needed them in Latin!).
Most people (not all, but most) who, in these forums, express a preference for the Mass of Paul VI do so in a way that does not denigrate the Tridentine Mass. Some, such as me, actually attempt to be supportive of the old Holy Father’s wish for a generous application of the Indult. I can tell you why, in my case at least: I would hate to have the rite I love suddenly (and in the case of the Church, 10 years is lightning fast) taken away from me. I EMPATHIZE with those who are attached to the TLM because I’m attached to the MPVI. That empathy, however, is sorely tried by those who disparge the Mass I love, not the abuses, but the nature of the Mass itself, the character of It.
I’m terribly pleased to hear that the TLM is particularly loved by the young. I can mark the rudeness of some of the people who are it’s most vehement advocates down to their relative youth. Incidentally, the MPVI isn’t the sole province of old hippies. I’m 43, which is hardly old. I’m not a hippie, either (I voted for Reagan BOTH times).
But they don’t! That’s the problem. If you were able (and I’m not suggesting that anyone should, as that would indicate one might have way too much time on one’s hands) to go back over the threads in these forums that deal with the question of TLM Vs. NO or any thread of the most remote ilk, you would find that by and large, very few people have expressed their preference for the Tridentine Mass in such a way that did not denigrate the Mass of Paul VI. I’m not talking about those who simply say,“I prefer the Tridentine Mass for x, y, and z reasons.” I’m talking about those who express it in much the same way as the young French priest cited above did.
I am fortunate or odd, one of the two. I was recieved into the Church by Carmelites who celebrated the Mass of Paul VI reverently and attentively. I attend a parish now where the pastor is hard nosed about the liturgy. I’ve seen a few abuses (ask me about a Mass I attended at Holy Cross Church in Santa Cruz, California this summer on vacation
), but by and large, the Masses I have attended have been reverently offered. This is the Mass that I was recieved into the Church with and I love it. I should be willing to give the Tridentine Mass a chance, but I find I’m really not, because of the attitudes I see expressed by so many who are devoted to it (for example, one person in this very thread cited lighting the wrong number of candles as an abuse! To me, this is absolute nitpicking!!! Who counts candles?!?!?!). Some, not all, but some (and by that I mean MOST) speak of their preference with such a sense of triumphalism, such a sense of propriety, that one would think that the Tridentine Mass had been their idea, their own little brain storm. I go to Mass thinking of my sins, my unworthiness, and the Grace that allows me to attend upon Him, and I sometimes weep to rec. Him in Communion. If the Tridentine Mass is the country club of self-congratulation and smug piety that some of it’s proponents make it sound like, then I fear you will have to count me out, unless it again became the normative Mass of the Church, and then…well, then, I would spend the rest of my life mourning not being able to hear the precious words of consecration and not being able to regularly rec. the Most Precious Blood from the Chalice, not to mention the really odd bit (to me, anyway) about the lessons being proclaimed in both Latin and the vernacular (as if God needed to hear them in the first place or as if He needed them in Latin!).Most people (not all, but most) who, in these forums, express a preference for the Mass of Paul VI do so in a way that does not denigrate the Tridentine Mass. Some, such as me, actually attempt to be supportive of the old Holy Father’s wish for a generous application of the Indult. I can tell you why, in my case at least: I would hate to have the rite I love suddenly (and in the case of the Church, 10 years is lightning fast) taken away from me. I EMPATHIZE with those who are attached to the TLM because I’m attached to the MPVI. That empathy, however, is sorely tried by those who disparge the Mass I love, not the abuses, but the nature of the Mass itself, the character of It.
I’m terribly pleased to hear that the TLM is particularly loved by the young. I can mark the rudeness of some of the people who are it’s most vehement advocates down to their relative youth. Incidentally, the MPVI isn’t the sole province of old hippies. I’m 43, which is hardly old. I’m not a hippie, either (I voted for Reagan BOTH times).
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
"How is it simpler to abuse a Mass in Latin>"
**Because relatively few people will actually understand it? Esp. if it’s mumbled or said in a low tone? **
To say that this Mass is abuse-proof is absurd. Here’s a little observation made by Martin Luther on his pilgrimage to Rome. It’s from a book by Richard Marius (he wrote an excellent work on Saint Thomas More and in this book, Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death, Luther doesn’t come off at all well, while Marius comments on the continued vigor of Catholicism):
"Luther claimed that he went to mass time and again and was shocked by the irreverence of the officiating priests. "Bread thou art, and bread thou shalt remain, " they chanted in Latin at the altar, mocking the doctrine of transubstantiation and by extension the tradition of the church and the notion of the unseen world. Roman priests like Christian priests everywhere at the time were paid to say masses for the dead. They sped along, Luther said, as if doing a trick, and when he took his turn at the altar to say his own mass, slowly in the pious German way, the next priest in line hissed,“Get on with it! Get on!”
I
Iohannes
Guest
JKirkLVNV said:
You cannot prove a negative, if you cannot understand or hear the priest speak, how can you prove there is liturgical abuse?
Again, you cannot prove a negative. If you cannot hear what the priest is saying, you cannot prove that he is saying something else.
If the priest is speaking latin, facing God, and talks in a low voice, the priest does not have an audience to abuse the Mass.
K
kelso
Guest
Here’s a nice compromise:
The New Mass done facing the altar, Gregorian Chant, AND said entirely in Latin (excluding the homily).
Saturday, September 3rd, 2005
11am
Blessed Sacrament
4540 El Cerrito Drive (at El Cajon Blvd)
San Diego, California 92115
Parish office: 619-582-5722
presented by Chorus Breviarii
more information mrkelso@hotmail.com http://www.american-pictures.com/genealogy/descent/photos/St.Gregory.2.jpg
The New Mass done facing the altar, Gregorian Chant, AND said entirely in Latin (excluding the homily).
Saturday, September 3rd, 2005
11am
Blessed Sacrament
4540 El Cerrito Drive (at El Cajon Blvd)
San Diego, California 92115
Parish office: 619-582-5722
presented by Chorus Breviarii
more information mrkelso@hotmail.com http://www.american-pictures.com/genealogy/descent/photos/St.Gregory.2.jpg
P
PAX777
Guest
The New Life Teen Mass or a Youth Mass.
I have been raised post Vat II. Its what I know & Like…
I have a Family Now & We find it very easy to understand, and reflect our faith & question to our Children.
:twocents:
I have been raised post Vat II. Its what I know & Like…
I have a Family Now & We find it very easy to understand, and reflect our faith & question to our Children.
:twocents:
J
johnnyjoe
Guest
It is more likely that the person’s disposition that brings him to the ceremony effects the impact of any ceremony upon him.
It has been my experience [and this thread confirms this observation] that fans of the TLM see the FORM of the Mass as having a direct impact on the EFFECT of the Mass.
The NO was given to the Church because of the extremely low participation of the congregation in the prayer of the mass. My grandmother, and even my mother, thinks it is perfectly permissible to sit and pray the rosary and WATCH the Mass happen.
Unless the congregant is prepared to PRAY ALONG with the Mass, whether the Mass is a TLM or a NO is irrelevant. That is the Church’s understanding of how the EFFECT of the Mass - the impact of the ceremony - is to be “felt”. I use the word “felt” cautiously, for the abuses of the NO seem to lie in an emphasis on the…well, on a whole lot of things.
For this thread, let me observe that the TLM is no less prone to abuse than the NO. More importantly, since this rite is less well known, it would be easy for new adherents to the rite to be mislead by any discrepancy the priest might make.
The form of the Mass is a red herring, in some regard, for the reverence and beauty of the Mass is created not ONLY by the discipline of the priest, but by the behavior of the congregants as well.
The NO Mass I attend is powerfully reverent. We use the Adoramus Hymnal [NO Marty Haugen!!], we sing the Kyrie [in Greek], as well as the Gloria, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dea in Latin. Our priest only uses Eucharistic prayer #1, and at the risk of sounding pompous, we easily have the best Catholic choir in the city.
All this not only because of the will of the priest. Without the congregants coming prepared, and PRAYING the Mass with the priest with as much reverence, then the effect would still not be realized properly…regardless of the form.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Absurd. It’s a fairy tale that the TLM cannot be abused and never has been abused. You’re taking refuge in a legal argument, a technicality. It’s as subject to abuse as the Mass of Paul VI because it’s offered up by human beings. Nothing “magic” protects it.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
This sounds ideal and it is what our parish is preparing to do for our 9:30 Mass on Sundays. The entrance hymn is to be replaced by the introit in the Missalette, which will be chanted, as will the Communion Antiphon. Our music director is a gifted composer and is already working on a setting for “Salvador Mundi, salva nos” in place of the “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” memorial acclamation, both in the Latin mass settings that he’s writing, as well as the English one we’re singing now. All of this is in anticipation of the new translations.
I
Iohannes
Guest
I never said that the TLM cannot be abused.
Here is what the other person said:
TLM is silent and in Latin, therefore It can be abused easily.
I asked prove it? You can use real examples, which none you have came up with.
You said since it is done in Latin and quiet, it can be abused. But that is not proof, only speculation, because you cannot prove a negative. I wanted PROOF, not speculation.
There are abuses in the TLM, but those same abuses are legal in the Novus Ordo.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I cited Luther’s experience. TLMers are constantly noting that the TLM was codified by Trent, but that it had been used for centuries before. Luther spoke of his experience, in Rome itself, of this very Mass. You cannot make the case that the Mass of PVI is any more subject to abuse than the TLM, anymore than I can make the case that the TLM is more subject to abuse. The problem would disappear if the the priests (in Luther’s time and now) simply stuck to the rubrics.
M
mosher
Guest
I understand your point and applaud your pastor but you avoided my question.
B
bear06
Guest
I think you’re referring to this?
I’d have to answer, not necessarily. Of course, it would be easier to answer if I had an example of what you were getting at.
I, myself, can go to any valid Mass (well, maybe not a clown Mass) and be in awe of what is going on. Yes, sometimes this takes focus and even sacrifice on our part.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Well, I made my masss tonight atmy parish. Tomorrow, I’m going to visit the SSPX chapel here in Vegas, so I can experience the TLM. May as well understand a bit more. I’m going for 3 weeks, as our choir gets off its summer break after Labor Day. If anyone cares, I’ll tell you what I think.
M
mosher
Guest
If you would please to do not use the SSPX chapel mass to fulfill your Sunday obligation. They are a schismatic group (even though they claim not to be) and attending a schismatic groups liturgy while it may be valid it is still illicit.
M
mosher
Guest
I think that you give a very honest answer when you say not necessarily. However, not to build a straw man, I would claim that when there is a sufficient difference in a situation one disposition can be drastically changed. An example that I would cite is the difference in visiting a head of state like the President in his Oval Office and visiting a King in his throne room. The pomp and circumstance surrounding the two events both inspire awe to some degree however with the fuller “ritual” of having an audience with a King it evokes a deeper set of reverence than if one is to visit an elected head of state.
J
johnnyjoe
Guest
I thought I answered it, if not directly, then indirectly. Your question:
***Is it a valid statement to say that form of ceremony effects a persons disposition to an event? ***
Since the question is quite general, the answer I gave above was general. So to be more specific: The use of the word “ceremony” is a bit vague, given the subject of this thread, is it not? The form of a memorial ceremony effects the persons experience at the memorial, but to say the form affects a disposition is to give causal weight to a process that if not difficult to achieve, is almost impossible to measure.
Does somone “feel” different after Mass? Is that the goal?
Are we to be ruled by “feelings”?
Can we “feel” Grace, and does one kind of Mass make the reception of that Grace easier to feel?
Your obvious reference is to point to the effect of the TLM on the congregants versus the effect of the Novus Ordo on the congregants. A person’s disposition to either rite is formed before they walk in the door - that was the point of my post above. If the majority of Catholics would simply do and examination of conscious before they attended Mass, my but how fast would the Church in America change…for the better to be sure.
To claim that the form of the mass has the power to change that disposition is tenuous at best, for either rite to claim. The effect of the Mass on any one individual is determined by their fervor, the openess of their heart, and the great Mercy of God. Only God can see the soul, and to claim that the form of the Mass is inherently “Holier”, and thus has a “bigger” effect on the disposition of an individual is, I fear, and act of hubris.
As was said a bit higher on the thread, the typical response of fans of the TLM is to express their preference in negative terms - as a perjoritive against the NO. That is a terribly infectious and judgmental mindset, and it does lead to confusion among those, like myself, who are disposed to liking the TLM. My problem has always been with superiority complex that many fans of the TLM seemed to be infected with.
The notion that a form of ceremony - and I would never discribe the Mass as a “ceremony” - will by design have a greater impact on any given individual is untenable.
M
mosher
Guest
i can see where you are going, however, I have to disagree and base my grounds on the iconoclast heresy of th eearly Church. It is the practice of the Church to use the senses to evok a greater sense of reverence, the Divine, timelessness, transendence, etc in the liturgical formula. One can come into mass with one disposition and by being surrounded by hoy things and actions ones disoposition can become more receptive to the liturgy itself. This is just a basic psychological aspect of the human person. Every corporation uses such studies to get people in a disposition to sell or buy etc. The Church has been exploiting this aspect of the Human Person since the begining and it deliberatelly employs art, architecture, music, words, silence, gestures, vestments, etc to affect the person and effect their disposition during the liturgy so that they can more experience what is being taught and presented at the altar.
I will suggest a book on this topic “Heaven in Stone and Glass” by Robert Barron.
- Status