Latin Mass vs New Mass

[JKirkLVNV]

mosher:

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.

I was aware of that, Mosher. I said I made my obligation at my own parish’s vigil Mass. I’m well aware of the schismatic nature of the SSPX.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I attended my first TLM at the SSPX chapel today. These are my impressions and opinions. I’ll state the facts as clearly as I can and my impressions and opinions will be separate. Keep in mind that this was a schismatic group, not in communion with the Holy See or with the local bishop. I had no choice if I was going to attend the TLM, as we have no approved TLM or Mass of Paul VI in Latin in this diocese. I can see why the bishop might be reluctant to have one, as this High Mass was attended by only about 75 people, counting the priest, but not me.

When I entered, there was the silence that should be expected in any Catholic church (my own parish observes silence meticulously). The priest entered in cope and biretta, performed the asperges, then vested for Mass. The Mass was obviously in Latin, but you wouldn’t know it unless you had the text in front of you (I brought my own) as everything was said *soto voce *and very rapidly. The parts that weren’t were drowned out by the choir, who sang in Latin very ably and with good tone, but had a tendency to give everything a crescendo.

After the readings in Latin, the priest read them in English and made announcements, during which time he advertised for a booklet entitled “Time Bombs of Vatican II,” saying that we should read it ourselves and try to get our “Novus Ordo” friends to read it, “those who can read and are willing to read it.” He said this with a distinct smirk. There was no sermon per se, because they were inducting men into the Holy Name Society. During his admonition to them, the priest made the point that the Novus Ordo Mass was an abomination and said that at least Moslems, though they worship a false god and have a false prophet, know the meaning of reverence and respect. The induction followed.

The TLM proceeded as I suppose it always does. I don’t know how many people frequent this chapel (the only SSPX in Las Vegas, though there is as least one other “traditional” group, but I’ve heard they are sedevacanteists), but the congregation seemed unable as a whole to kneel or stand or sit as a group. Sometimes half would be up while the others were down and vice versa. I just tried to do what the little old lady next to me was doing (she seemed very nice). During the Gloria, we sat down about half way through. This also happened during the Creed. The priest sat as well.

I could not understand a word the priest said at any point in the ritual. I don’t mean I couldn’t understand Latin. I didn’t expect to be able to understand any part other than the conventionally sung parts (Gloria, Sanctus, etc.). I mean I couldn’t hear him, at any point or follow him, though I had the text in Latin and English in front of me. I’m NOT saying he rushed it, but if our pastor had read the Mass that fast in English, I WOULD have said he was rushing it. I didn’t receive Communion, which was rec. at the rail in the traditional manner.

I didn’t like this Mass. I don’t think I would ever be able to get used to not understanding what is being said. The congregation didn’t join in the Gloria or the Creed or the Sanctus (I’m aware this wasn’t a Missa recitata), but that just seems very odd to me. The congregation did nothing, except rise and sit and kneel, none of which they did in unison. They didn’t even join the choir in the recessional and it was “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name!” (I wish we sang that more in my parish). A priest (one of my regular confessors) told me that the last one he attended, he got goose bumps on his goose bumps (he encouraged me to go). I didn’t get a goose bump, let alone a goose bump on my goose bumps.
I tried to go with an open mind, I prayed before I went. Obviously, the diatribe against the “Novus Ordo” didn’t please me, but I expected something like it. I tried to be open-minded about the silent canon, but I don’t like it. I don’t like the choir making the response for the congregation. I realize that it was perfectly valid (though illicit). I realize that it has a reverence and a dignity that are beautiful to those who find them so, but I don’t believe that the Mass of Paul VI, reverently offered, is any less reverent or dignified. If anything, this made me glad of my parish church and the way Mass is offered there.

(Continued)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Most of the people there were over 50 (I’d say roughly 2/3s). There were only about six children (I felt sorry for them, hearing their priest mock the Church’s Mass). I was one of 7 men in suits and I was the only putz in a black wool one (it’s the only one I own), which made me into my own little walking sauna in the Vegas heat. There was one other man in a tie besides me. I was glad to see that common sense prevailed and all the other men wore shirts and slacks alone, except for one man who wore shorts. The priest did not come to greet the people at the door of the church, which I’ve never seen in my entire life, in any church, from the Baptist to the Byzantine Catholic. He may have had an emergency, though.

I’m going again next week to the low mass. Thus far, I’ve come away grateful for my parish, for my priest, and for the Mass of Paul VI.

 

[mosher]

The advice that I give all people that attend a Tridintine Liturgy is that one of the major difference s is that in teh Novus Ordo we do a lot of things but in the Tridintine Liturgy we oly do one thing and that is direct our prayer with the priest. Next time I would suggest not using a missle and just try to rest in the liturgy.

You also have identified one of my biggest problem with the way the Tridentine Liturgy is said at times … it is lovenly refered to as an Irish Mass meaning that it is rushed through. I find that a point of irreverence that some priests still do even in the Novus Ordo.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mosher:

The advice that I give all people that attend a Tridintine Liturgy is that one of the major difference s is that in teh Novus Ordo we do a lot of things but in the Tridintine Liturgy we oly do one thing and that is direct our prayer with the priest. Next time I would suggest not using a missle and just try to rest in the liturgy.

.

I couldn’t hear it! I doubt anyone not in the sanctuary could hear it.

One good thing, that I would like to see in all parishes: adult men served the priest at the Altar. I think it would be magnificent for sons to see their fathers doing this. I bet we’d get a lot of vocations that way.

 

[palmas85]

"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!”

Luther definitely had an agenda to pursue and I would not be at all surprised if he exagerrated or outright lied about a lot of things in order to pursue his goals.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

Luther definitely had an agenda to pursue and I would not be at all surprised if he exagerrated or outright lied about a lot of things in order to pursue his goals.

Even the Church admitted the need for reformation. Luther wasn’t the only clergyman to seek for reformation. Others did as well, Luther just took it too far. Being a heretic doesn’t necessarily make you a liar. No one attempted to deny that the Mass was abused in the way he (and others) said it was. We had the counter-reformation not merely to condemn Luther, but to fix some of the very things that gave rise to Luther.

 

[Searching13]

JKirkLVNV:

The people who want the TLM are supposed to manifest that desire to their bishop or he’s supposed to be pastoral enough to be able to “detect” it or inquire about it. These polls are repeated over and over on these threads. If bishops read these posts, then they know. The purpose for these polls doesn’t seem to be informing bishops, however.

Absolutely.

Does anyone honestly think the Bishop is interested in internet polls? or should be? If he will look for an indication of what people want, it will be in his diocese. These polls could be from anywhere. A Bishop’s responsibility is the good of his flock. The opinions or needs of the rest of the world should not influence his actions. (Regarding legitimate options)

If anyone is sincere in his need or desire, he should poll his parish and send those results to his bishop. Just be certain you have a priest willing and able to celebrate a Latin Mass before you request the indult.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

And understanding dawns…

It seems to me that Kirk’s description of the TLM above is the reason we even have Traditionalists today. When the Mass of Paul VI was instituted, people still attached to the TLM were told to sit down and shut up and if they didn’t like it…too bad. “Do not quench the Spirit! Get with the times, you knuckle-dragging Luddites!”

So, Kirk…what if the TLM was again the normative Mass of the Latin Rite (not saying it’s going to be, just work with me here). What if the Mass that you came into the Church with and have grown to love with all your heart, the Mass of Paul VI, was suppressed, forbidden, outlawed? What if priests, theologians, bishops and cardinals all ridiculed an attachment to the PVI Mass? What if you were forced to attend every Sunday this incomprehensible TLM, with bitter screeds from the pulpit about the Mass of Paul VI and all priests who continued to celebrate it? What if you found it impossible at Mass to pray or feel anything but a hatred and rage that this horror had been imposed on you? How would you feel?

If you can, attend an indult TLM sometime. Having attended an indult Mass in two separate dioceses, it’s been my experience that you won’t find the anger and superiority that seems to exist at the SSPX chapel you went to. On the contrary, it’s my experience that the indult people have a great love for the Holy Father and the local bishop who, in his generosity, allows the TLM to be offered. :tiphat:

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dr. Bombay:

So, Kirk…what if the TLM was again the normative Mass of the Latin Rite (not saying it’s going to be, just work with me here). What if the Mass that you came into the Church with and have grown to love with all your heart, the Mass of Paul VI, was suppressed, forbidden, outlawed? What if priests, theologians, bishops and cardinals all ridiculed an attachment to the PVI Mass? What if you were forced to attend every Sunday this incomprehensible TLM, with bitter screeds from the pulpit about the Mass of Paul VI and all priests who continued to celebrate it? What if you found it impossible at Mass to pray or feel anything but a hatred and rage that this horror had been imposed on you? How would you feel?

If you can, attend an indult TLM sometime. Having attended an indult Mass in two separate dioceses, it’s been my experience that you won’t find the anger and superiority that seems to exist at the SSPX chapel you went to. On the contrary, it’s my experience that the indult people have a great love for the Holy Father and the local bishop who, in his generosity, allows the TLM to be offered. :tiphat:

Bombay: I think I’ve already addressed this in Post #104 of this thread, but I’ll quote from the relevant part:

"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."

What would be different, other than a lack of scorn heaped upon the normative Mass of the Church, if I attended an Indult? Are you talking about the Mass of Paul VI offered in Latin or the TLM? I doubt my reaction would be much different. I think it is vitally important to have the liturgy in the vernacular. I think it is vitally important to be able to hear it and understand it. If the Mass was offered as it was today, but by a loyal and obedient priest, my opinion of the liturgy would not change. I think it is a true charge that it some places, the tone and emphasis of the Mass has become too horizontal. What I saw today was far too vertical, however, IMHO. The congregation was as well not to have been there. I never understood before how the custom of privately reciting the Rosary during Mass came to be, now I get it! We need a balance between the vertical (offered to God) and the horizontal (offered for the worshipping sinners). It’s us for whom the Sacrifice is offered, for our sins. I don’t mind about as much Latin as is in a EWTN Mass, but not most of it. That opinion is even more strongly held by me now, having seen it. As for what I would do: I would attend one of two Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgies here (both done in the vernacular) and hope for the day when all the Episcopalians in town finally get fed up, swim the Tiber, and request an Anglican Use parish. If I couldn’t do that, I’d attend the TLM, but I would be sad for the rest of my life on this earth. And that’s why I said what I said about empathy.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

JKirkLVNV:

Bombay: I think I’ve already addressed this in Post #104 of this thread, but I’ll quote from the relevant part:

"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."

But aren’t you doing the same thing to the TLM, disparaging “the very nature of the Mass itself, the character of it?”

JKirkLVNV:

What would be different, other than a lack of scorn heaped upon the normative Mass of the Church, if I attended an Indult?

Nothing in regards to the Mass itself. But that scorn must’ve colored your perception of the whole experience. I attended a SSPX chapel one time many years ago, before they were in formal schism. It just didn’t feel right to me. At the indult Masses, I’ve always felt like part of the Church, a feeling reinforced by praise of the Holy Father and our good Bishops from the pulpit.

JKirkLVNV:

I think it is vitally important to have the liturgy in the vernacular. I think it is vitally important to be able to hear it and understand it. If the Mass was offered as it was today, but by a loyal and obedient priest, my opinion of the liturgy would not change. I think it is a true charge that it some places, the tone and emphasis of the Mass has become too horizontal. What I saw today was far too vertical, however, IMHO. The congregation was as well not to have been there. I never understood before how the custom of privately reciting the Rosary during Mass came to be, now I get it! We need a balance between the vertical (offered to God) and the horizontal (offered for the worshipping sinners). It’s us for whom the Sacrifice is offered, for our sins. I don’t mind about as much Latin as is in a EWTN Mass, but not most of it. That opinion is even more strongly held by me now, having seen it.

I would disagree that it is “vitally” important for the Mass to be in the vernacular. God understands, even if we don’t. Again, this goes back to the character of the Mass itself. Different strokes, as the saying goes. :tiphat:

 

[johnnyjoe]

mosher:

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.

Modern man’s senses are on overload. We have a modern culture that dulls the senses in to imbecility. The only real counter balance is silence - which is called for specifically in the new GIRM. The PaulVI NO, when done with the Latin prescribed, has all the elements you seek, and yet gives the congregants real meaning in their native tougue.

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.

The question really is how much Latin will do isn’t it? The behavior of the priest in the TLM - low quiet eucharistic prayer - only serves to distance the miracle of the real presence of Christ. I certainly believe that the TLM is a holy and reverent Mass, but it is not so for the lukewarm and poorly cathecised, which is the best way to discribe the bulk of American Catholics today.

The language continues to be the heart of the problem. I could never take my young children to the TLM and have them fully participate unless they had a working knowledge of Latin. Now we are homeschoolers, but that is very ambitious for even the most over-achieving of parents. The latin in the NO is frequent enough to instill mystery and poetry into the experience of the Mass, yet the english allows a level of participation that can help the lukewarm or poorly cathecised be drawn into the words.

I remind you, and all, that my problem is not with the TLM per se; but with the attitude that the NO is inadequate. I would venture to say that there are as few really authentic PaulVI NO Masses being said as there are TLM indult masses being said - and that fact is really what is the heart of the problem.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dr. Bombay:
But aren’t you doing the same thing to the TLM, disparaging “the very nature of the Mass itself, the character of it?”

**No, I don’t think so. I attended the Mass, stated the facts of what occured, then gave my impression. I didn’t say that it didn’t confect the Sacrifice, I didn’t say only idiots would attend this, or anything like that. I said I didn’t like it. I don’t. **

Nothing in regards to the Mass itself. But that scorn must’ve colored your perception of the whole experience. I attended a SSPX chapel one time many years ago, before they were in formal schism. It just didn’t feel right to me. At the indult Masses, I’ve always felt like part of the Church, a feeling reinforced by praise of the Holy Father and our good Bishops from the pulpit.

I addressed that seperately. I said even if it had been offered by a good and obedient priest, I would not care for it. That’s my personal take on it, I know that it is dear to other people. I haven’t mocked it.

I would disagree that it is “vitally” important for the Mass to be in the vernacular. God understands, even if we don’t. Again, this goes back to the character of the Mass itself. Different strokes, as the saying goes. :tiphat:

The character of the Mass is the matter, the intent, and the form. I wouldn’t dream of criticizing that! The TLM could easily be said in the vernacular, if the Pope approved it. That would not alter the character of the Mass, if he did approve it. As for God understanding it, doesn’t He understand it in the vernacular? If so, why would it be bad if WE understood it? Wouldn’t that be a nice by-product, us understanding it? I feel that my attendance at Mass (at a monastery) for about a year and a half is what evangelized me into the Church. I don’t know that that would have happened had it been in Latin. That’s why I think it’s vital that it be understood and comprehended: it’s the highest and best form of evangelizing.

If others want the TLM or Indult, I think it should be allowed (“generously applied”). I don’t want to have to attend anything other than the Mass of Paul VI. With the new ICEL translations, I hope some of this will die down. With more obedient bishops and priests coming up, I pray that these controversies will be put to rest.

 

[bear06]

So, Kirk…what if the TLM was again the normative Mass of the Latin Rite (not saying it’s going to be, just work with me here). What if the Mass that you came into the Church with and have grown to love with all your heart, the Mass of Paul VI, was suppressed, forbidden, outlawed?

Can I answer? I would be obedient and submissive realizing that, as stated in both Pastor Aerternus and Mediator Dei that this is the authority over the Mass is the Pope’s and not mine. Does it mean I have to like it? Absolutely not. I may even feel sad but I will rejoice that the Mass goes on.

I’ve done time for pro-life stuff and I can tell you that having the Mass taken away is incredibly difficult. I would have taken the worst Mass over nothing at all. I see some who say that they will “never again go to a Novus Ordo Mass.” How sad a statement unless their sure they are going to be in the same place the rest of their lives with an indult available to them. If they are truly saying never no matter what the circumstance then they are going to sacrifice receiving Our Lord for their personal preference. How tragic!

What if you found it impossible at Mass to pray or feel anything but a hatred and rage that this horror had been imposed on you?

If this happened it wouldn’t be a problem with the Mass it would be a problem with me. Really, Our Lord died on the cross and I can’t accept a Mass that isn’t pleasing to me? I would have some serious problems.

it’s been my experience that you won’t find the anger and superiority that seems to exist at the SSPX chapel you went to.

I have to disagree with you here. The difference is that not everyone at an indult has this problem. I’d say at least half of the people at our indult are there out of hate for the normative Mass, not simply because they prefer the Tridentine. Now, this might be because there are no chapels handy (thankfully).

On the contrary, it’s my experience that the indult people have a great love for the Holy Father and the local bishop who, in his generosity, allows the TLM to be offered. :tiphat:

Once again, I’d say there are definitely people at the TLM in this boat. In fact, I have a few friends in this boat so I don’t paint everyone with the same brush. That said, I also know many who have actually even left the indult to drive 2 hours away to the nearest chapel and some who are just waiting until the Holy Father restores the Tridentine and abolishes the Pauline Mass.

 

[mosher]

JKirkLVNV:

I couldn’t hear it! I doubt anyone not in the sanctuary could hear it.

One good thing, that I would like to see in all parishes: adult men served the priest at the Altar. I think it would be magnificent for sons to see their fathers doing this. I bet we’d get a lot of vocations that way.

Right, your not supposed to hear it. That is my point … do try to do anything and just unite yourself to the prayers of the Priest and the prayer fo the mass and listen to the silence. This is exactly what I mean about the dichotomy between the two liturgies because the radical difference is that in the NO we are so busy doing and in the Tridentine Liturgy we don’t have to be busy about anything except sitting at the feet of our Lord.

 

[mosher]

johnnyjoe:

Modern man’s senses are on overload. We have a modern culture that dulls the senses in to imbecility. The only real counter balance is silence - which is called for specifically in the new GIRM. The PaulVI NO, when done with the Latin prescribed, has all the elements you seek, and yet gives the congregants real meaning in their native tougue.

The question really is how much Latin will do isn’t it? The behavior of the priest in the TLM - low quiet eucharistic prayer - only serves to distance the miracle of the real presence of Christ. I certainly believe that the TLM is a holy and reverent Mass, but it is not so for the lukewarm and poorly cathecised, which is the best way to discribe the bulk of American Catholics today.

The language continues to be the heart of the problem. I could never take my young children to the TLM and have them fully participate unless they had a working knowledge of Latin. Now we are homeschoolers, but that is very ambitious for even the most over-achieving of parents. The latin in the NO is frequent enough to instill mystery and poetry into the experience of the Mass, yet the english allows a level of participation that can help the lukewarm or poorly cathecised be drawn into the words.

I remind you, and all, that my problem is not with the TLM per se; but with the attitude that the NO is inadequate. I would venture to say that there are as few really authentic PaulVI NO Masses being said as there are TLM indult masses being said - and that fact is really what is the heart of the problem.

Actually language has very little to do with my discussion. More later.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

For me, I would say the Current Mass. DUe to the influence of a particularly vile Radical Traditionalist on an other board, any desire I would of had to attend the TLM has been obliderated. I am not saying the TLM is not valid (in fact quite the opposite), it is just that it is not for me at this time.

PF

 

[bear06]

that in the NO we are so busy doing

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! And what are we doing? Actively worshipping. It’s not like we’re participating in things that we shouldn’t. Are you saying that there is no participation in the Tridentine? We’re talking about the Canons being in silence. This is the huge difference. Let’s talk about sitting at the feet of Our Lord. Remember, Mary was listening to him. Again, this is what I love about the “NO”. We can kneel in front of Our Lord and witness this awesome miracle. I just prefer to do it with the sound on with no subtitles!

Besides, if you’ll notice, Kirk said everything was soto voce not just the canons, etc. This, of course, is not the case at every Tridentine but it was at the one in which he participated.

Look, again, I have no problem with the Tridentine or those who prefer it. I don’t prefer it but I don’t think it’s bad. Why does ever difference have to be a bad thing? Argh! These arguments are just about as old as the Mass!

 

[pnewton]

mosher:

Right, your not supposed to hear it. …just unite yourself to the prayers of the Priest

I do not understand. We are not supposed to hear and understand, but we should “unite” ourselves with this? How?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mosher:

Right, your not supposed to hear it. That is my point … do try to do anything and just unite yourself to the prayers of the Priest and the prayer fo the mass and listen to the silence. This is exactly what I mean about the dichotomy between the two liturgies because the radical difference is that in the NO we are so busy doing and in the Tridentine Liturgy we don’t have to be busy about anything except sitting at the feet of our Lord.

I do not believe what you’ve written is the case. The “so busy” of the Mass of Paul VI is simply making the responses. I didn’t get the impression that my attendance at the Tridentine was any more a “sitting at the feet of our Lord” than my attendance at the MPVI. I think this comparison rings a little false. It may be your opinion, but it hardly representative of either Mass, from my limited experience of the TLM and that of others who grew up with It (not everyone, in fact, is nostaligic about the TLM and most older Catholics of my aquaintance don’t miss it), and my experience in a reverently celebrated MPVI.