Latin NO

[piojunbabia]

You are right. Cardinal Hoyos suggested the EF in every parish.

Really? thats great news!

 

[NTOT]

The essence of sacrifice in the Novus Ordo is diminished, infact V2 has emphasized it as a commemorial of the last supper, thus NO has become more on a Eucharistic Meal rather than a sacrifice.

Which of course is totally false, possibly bordering on heresy (the claim that it is not the Perfect Sacrifice". Vatican two did not say any such thing. The Mass under either the TLM or the Novus Order is the “Perfect Sacrifice”. The actual Sacrifice on Calvary reenacted in non-bloody manner.

If you try to study well the history of both masses, the TLM is truly what it is.

The rubrics and customs of any approved liturgy are disciplines set up by the Magisterium and local ordinaries within their prescribed limits and are subject to change with the times, as the TLM itself has done.

On the other hand, NO, is patterned to a Protestant Liturgy where no protestant is offended nor have any criticism of negative reaction towards our NO Mass.

Actually my experience has been that the Protestants I have invited to Mass were less offended at TLM masses since most of them did not understand what was going on, but thought it was a “beautiful and moving worship”. On the other hand the ones that have come to NO masses expressed much disagreement with the theology being presented which they could readily understand. It would be foolish to presume one is praying harder and better to God because the Mass being said around him is the TLM rather than the NO. I stand by the statement that strong TLM only adherents are driven by the appeal to emotion from external support.

 

[NTOT]

And I think EF devotees would posit the exact opposite, i.e. OF devotees needing the emotional boost. It’s kind of how you look at it.

But that is only a matter of subjective opinion. What is beautiful and moving to one, is not to another. Myself I prefer neither over the other and when I find myself at Mass at either one, I can rest assured I can offer no better prayer to God than the most “Perfect Sacrifice”.

 

[piojunbabia]

Which of course is totally false, possibly bordering on heresy (the claim that it is not the Perfect Sacrifice". Vatican two did not say any such thing. The Mass under either the TLM or the Novus Order is the “Perfect Sacrifice”. The actual Sacrifice on Calvary reenacted in non-bloody manner.

The rubrics and customs of any approved liturgy are disciplines set up by the Magisterium and local ordinaries within their prescribed limits and are subject to change with the times, as the TLM itself has done.

Actually my experience has been that the Protestants I have invited to Mass were less offended at TLM masses since most of them did not understand what was going on, but thought it was a “beautiful and moving worship”. On the other hand the ones that have come to NO masses expressed much disagreement with the theology being presented which they could readily understand. It would be foolish to presume one is praying harder and better to God because the Mass being said around him is the TLM rather than the NO. I stand by the statement that strong TLM only adherents are driven by the appeal to emotion from external support.

You are not convinced that TLM and NOM are theologically different? oh thats bad… I ask you to be patience to read…

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/index.htm

you can select the topics provided on that page… please be patient it is long (i hope not long enough for you) just read so that you’ll realize that its really different…
ok? thanks…then please tell us what is wrong with what you are reading…

 

[NTOT]

You are not convinced that TLM and NOM are theologically different? oh thats bad… I ask you to be patience to read…

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/index.htm

you can select the topics provided on that page… please be patient it is long (i hope not long enough for you) just read so that you’ll realize that its really different…
ok? thanks…then please tell us what is wrong with what you are reading…

Here is a good example from a quick gloss of some of the material presented in the mentioned link as to why it is a good idea to remain ever vigilant when perusing material on the net, especially regarding material which poses as instruction on the Catholic faith when in reality is deception and a serious attack on the Catholic Church:

the New Mass in English can indeed be valid, but that even when it is valid, it is so displeasing to God that such a Mass can never fulfill a Catholic’s Sunday obligation, and that a Catholic should never feel obliged to attend it.

Correction, if the only Mass available (and in most parts this is the case) was a Novus Ordo Mass, and one decided to refrain from going to Mass on Sunday for that reason, they would be guilty of a grave act against the third commandment. The sacrament of Confession would be in order.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the New Mass would cause a Catholic to adopt beliefs about the Mass which are not Catholic, and at the same time lose their Catholic beliefs, a Catholic should not attend the New Mass

This is another example of a totally false statement and attack on the Church and its approved rites for the celebration of the Perfect Sacrafice. It spawns disobediance to lawful Church authority and the magisterium itself. I wonder if someone has yet informed our Holy Father that he is going to lose his faith since he celebrates the Novus Ordo and is therefore acting in defiance of the Church and promoting falsehood.

Now,
rather than asking me to wade through your links of pages and volumes of material and scope it over for errors and point them out to you, It would be more courteous if you could present some specific material indicating support for the notion that the teaching authority of the Church is in grave error in its promotion of its Novus Ordo rite of celebration for the Perfect Sacrifice of the Mass and its worldwide use is therefore to be condemned.

 

[BrendanD]

I stand by the statement that strong TLM only adherents are driven by the appeal to emotion from external support.

Are you saying that accurate wording, prayers to the Saints, the Sign of the Cross, and talking about sacrifice at Mass are “appeals to emotion”?

But that is only a matter of subjective opinion.

So if someone says they prefer the TLM, it’s written off as a subjective opinion. But you can make a blanket generalization that everyone who prefers the TLM is just looking for emotionl kicks.

What is beautiful and moving to one, is not to another. Myself I prefer neither over the other and when I find myself at Mass at either one, I can rest assured I can offer no better prayer to God than the most “Perfect Sacrifice”.

So why don’t we just get rid of the readings and stop saying the Our Father? It would still be the “Perfect Sacrifice”, so it would be exactly the same, right? Your argument is essentially minimalism-- that as long as the consecration occurs, the rest of the Mass doesn’t matter.

By the way, why don’t you address the differences between the two forms at all? You talk about people that attend the TLM, but you don’t say anything about the differences between the Masses themselves.

 

[kentuckyliz]

I prefer the NO, Latin or vernacular, because as a pew-warmer I’m not treated like chopped liver.

 

[NTOT]

Are you saying that accurate wording, prayers to the Saints, the Sign of the Cross, and talking about sacrifice at Mass are “appeals to emotion”?

Of course not. Did I? I think I had stated that both TLM and NO are the Perfect Sacrifice of the Mass. Neither Mass is lacking in that. That is fact. Neither Mass is wrong and neither one teaches error as promoted in the supporting links that were presented above.

So if someone says they prefer the TLM, it’s written off as a subjective opinion.

That is all it is, it is preference. Attending and praying at one or the other does not make one more holy than another.

But you can make a blanket generalization that everyone who prefers the TLM is just looking for emotionl kicks.

Many are, in fact I said many are attracted to TLM for the awe and inspiration (appeal to emotion) of its liturgical form. No blanket statement here.

So why don’t we just get rid of the readings and stop saying the Our Father? It would still be the “Perfect Sacrifice”, so it would be exactly the same, right?

Because the Church has not approved such a liturgy and likely will not. Note with emphasis, the NO is not a renegade liturgy. It is an official development of the Holy Catholic Church itself, and it is not a very good idea to say the Church screwed up and is wrong and is responsible for leading its flock astray.

By the way, why don’t you address the differences between the two forms at all? You talk about people that attend the TLM, but you don’t say anything about the differences between the Masses themselves.

You have to present some differences or deficiencies in one over the other, otherwise how can I address them. I didn’t claim there were any theological differences, you did. I stated quite succinctly that they are both totally, one hundred percent, licit, valid, wholly Church approved liturgies. In fact, if anything, the Church has had restrictions in place on the TLM. Would you say the Church is wrong for doing so and therefore in further error?

 

[NTOT]

I prefer the NO, Latin or vernacular, because as a pew-warmer I’m not treated like chopped liver.

Don’t let anyone tell you that you are attending an invalid Mass or are not offering the Perfect Sacrifice by attending one. Myself, I don’t have a preference for either one, as I love them both as a product of Holy Mother Church herself.

 

[BrendanD]

Of course not. Did I?

Well, you claim that the TLM has some emotional elements that are removed from the NO, but you haven’t told us what those elements are exactly. So which parts are you talking about?

My friends that go to the TLM say that it’s for the clearer prayers, solid preaching, reverent music, etc. I’m not inclined to assume that they’re lying and simply need an emotional boost from the Mass.

I think I had stated that both TLM and NO are the Perfect Sacrifice of the Mass.

Every Mass has the Perfect Sacrifice. This doesn’t mean that it’s anything-goes and nothing else matters.

Neither Mass is wrong and neither one teaches error as promoted in the supporting links that were presented above.

I didn’t say that either teaches error or post those links.

Many are, in fact I said many are attracted to TLM for the awe and inspiration (appeal to emotion) of its liturgical form. No blanket statement here.

It is a blanket statement even if you add “many.” Unless you’re a mind reader, you have no idea why people go to the TLM. Are the priests who only say the TLM (like the FSSP) also just looking for an “appeal to emotion”?

Because the Church has not approved such a liturgy and likely will not. Note with emphasis, the NO is not a renegade liturgy.

It would still be the Perfect Sacrifice. Clearly, you agree that a valid consecration is not the only important part of the Mass.

It is an official development of the Holy Catholic Church itself, and it is not a very good idea to say the Church screwed up and is wrong and is responsible for leading its flock astray.

Again, I didn’t say any of the above.

You have to present some differences or deficiencies in one over the other, otherwise how can I address them.

Take a look at the text of both Masses side by side. It’s not just the appearances that are different, it’s the content. Those differences are the reason people prefer the TLM.

I didn’t claim there were any theological differences, you did.

I think you’re confusing me with another poster.

In fact, if anything, the Church has had restrictions in place on the TLM. Would you say the Church is wrong for doing so and therefore in further error?

The Church has already admitted that it was wrong to place restrictions on the TLM. Hence, recent statements from the Church that the TLM was never abrogated, and that any priest may say it freely. People in the Church do make bad decisions, even Popes.

 

[BrendanD]

I prefer the NO, Latin or vernacular, because as a pew-warmer I’m not treated like chopped liver.

People who prefer the TLM probably feel like “chopped liver” as well, since they have to drive hours to get to the Mass they want, petition and write letters to get one in their area, have bishops that disobey the Pope and try to stop the TLM, etc.

 

[NTOT]

Well, you claim that the TLM has some emotional elements that are removed from the NO, but you haven’t told us what those elements are exactly. So which parts are you talking about?

To tell you the truth, I am not really sure there are emotional elements purposely built into either liturgy. But I do know a lot of people who do have a strong emotional attachment to the TLM because they say it is more beautiful, reverent, moving, . . . …etc…
That would seem to be a good thing if it acts as an aid to help those people to pray, which is what I had claimed near the beginning of this thread. The TLM appeals to such people who need emotional aid to help them pray. This is not a bad thing at all. But it does not indicate a theological difference in the amount of worship given to God. We are powerless to give God perfect glory and worship, that is why the Perfect Sacrifice makes up for our inabilities with perfection by becoming Perfect. Neither Mass gives, nor any valid Mass for that matter, is imperfect.

My friends that go to the TLM say that it’s for the clearer prayers, solid preaching, reverent music, etc. I’m not inclined to assume that they’re lying and simply need an emotional boost from the Mass.

But that is my point. These are personal aids for individual people. Clearer prayers work for some, reverent music for others. One of the NO Churches in my area believe it or not has more reverent music than another Church offereing Latin Mass. They sing (really, they do) older more traditional songs, full choir (especially compared to the traditional low mass which is devoid of any music or singing), etc. Again more emotional appeal. It is all subjective.

Every Mass has the Perfect Sacrifice. This doesn’t mean that it’s anything-goes and nothing else matters.

Agreed, no it doesn’t. The liturgy must be of a form approved by the Holy Catholic Church. If the Church were to approve consecration only Masses (which it has, for example allowed priests in concentration camps to offer such masses) they would not only be licit and valid, but fully and entirely pleasing to God as the being the most Perfect Sacrifice and prayer. One does not more fully keep holy the Sabbath by going to a TLM mass versus a NO mass anymore than were the POW masses deficient in being the Perfect Offereing.

It is a blanket statement even if you add “many.” Unless you’re a mind reader, you have no idea why people go to the TLM.

It is not a blanket statement, because “many” refers to a multitude of people who personally expressed their reasons for preferring the TLM. I do not extend that as a blanket statement to all people who prefer the TLM.

Are the priests who only say the TLM (like the FSSP) also just looking for an “appeal to emotion”?

These fine priests are an excellent example of those who would not be included in a blanket statement. I am sure other religious disciplines such as the vows taken by cloisters of the Carmelites are not doing so out of emotional reasons either. Note that they do not claim that they are living a more holy life and thereby making themselves more pleasing to God than those who choose not to belong to a cloister. In the same way, I attend the TLM, but do not claim it is superior to the Novus Ordo. I also attend the Novus Ordo, but do not claim it is superior either. Nor do I feel I pray the mass any better or worse at either Mass when they are done properly. Granted there are other reasons than emotional appeal as well. Many others have expressed a preference for the TLM because the Novus Ordo is folksy, and irreverent. This basically indicates an ignorance of the Novus Ordo as was specified by Vatican Two. It was abused and distorted renditions of the liturgy done by confused priests who took liberties upon themselves with the Mass that they are familiar with and use as their comparison. Many of these folks have never seen the Novus Ordo the way it is supposed to be according to the GIRM.

It would still be the Perfect Sacrifice. Clearly, you agree that a valid consecration is not the only important part of the Mass.

Correct. But care must be taken to avoid the trap of saying that one liturgy is more of a Mass or a better Mass than another, or that one liturgy is not fully ‘the Mass’.

Take a look at the text of both Masses side by side. It’s not just the appearances that are different, it’s the content. Those differences are the reason people prefer the TLM.

But these are only personal reasons. One person, because he prefers this or that content or translation, do not make one more correct for their beliefs. It is no different than me prefering the Douay Rhiems over the NAB.

I didn’t say that either teaches error or post those links.

I think you’re confusing me with another poster.

Yes I did. It was the poster in #24 who claimed theological differences and posted the links, to which I addressed some of the errors contained in the links. Sorry about that.

 

[Sarabande]

Has anyone here been to a Latin NO? I have seen them on EWTN and think they are very good. I wish I could find one. There is no Tridentine mass around me and I think I might prefere the Latin NO anyway

We have one at our parish twice a month. The parishioners know the responses and booklets are provided for those masses. We get lots of visitors as well since we’re a cathedral parish in the city and only a couple of times have I seen people leave once they realize it is in Latin. The majority of the time, they will all stay and even attempt the Latin responses. The choir will sing for this mass. They will usually do a Palestrina or Victoria mass and then Latin motets by various composers. The Sanctus and Memorial Acclamation and Pater Noster are chanted. The Agnus Dei is usually part of the Palestrina or Victoria mass.

 

[NTOT]

the New Mass in English can indeed be valid, but that even when it is valid, it is so displeasing to God that such a Mass can never fulfill a Catholic’s Sunday obligation, and that a Catholic should never feel obliged to attend it.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the New Mass would cause a Catholic to adopt beliefs about the Mass which are not Catholic, and at the same time lose their Catholic beliefs, a Catholic should not attend the New Mass.

The above quotes actually bothered me enough to have to say a little bit more about them. This is such a crafty idea on the part of the mastermind of the prince of lies inasmuch as it is a very clever way of keeping people from fulfilling their Sunday obligation of going to Church. The first quote claims it is displeasing to God. Well who would go to Church in the first place if they knew they were going to be displeasing God. Then it says a Catholic has no obligation to attend it, read that as even if it is the only Mass available.
The second quote goes even further yet and specifically instructs Catholics that they should NOT attend the Novus Ordo at all. It claims the Novus Ordo to be a cause of scandal promulgated by the Church herself and specifically instructs Catholics not to attend. That of course is downright heresy. All further legitimacy to the article presented is of course lost as a source of solid Catholic teaching and one to be avoided by anyone who wishes to remain faithful to the Church. At best it is a grave irresponsibility on the part of the author(s). Here is the reference -----> catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/nmissa.htm
Might I further add some further disturbing quotes preaching grave errors which attack the sacred and most holy sacrafice of the Mass:

Because the New Mass is not an unequivocal Profession of the Catholic Faith (which the traditional Mass is), it is ambiguous and Protestant. Therefore since we pray as we believe, it follows that we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant Fashion and still believe as Catholics.
.
Because the New Mass does not manifest Faith in the Real Presence of our Lord – the Traditional Mass manifests it unmistakably
.
Because the New Mass confuses the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with His MYSTICAL Presence among us (proximating Protestant doctrine).
.
Because the New Mass favors the heretical theory that it is THE FAITH of the people and not THE WORDS OF THE PRIEST which makes Christ present in the Eucharist.
.
Because by grave omissions, the New Mass leads us to believe that it is only a meal (Protestant doctrine) and not a sacrifice for the remission of sins (Catholic Doctrine).
.
Because beautiful, familiar Catholic hymns which have inspired people for centuries, have been thrown out and replaced with new hymns strongly Protestant in sentiment, further deepening the already distinct impression that one is no longer attending a Catholic function.
.
Because the New Mass contains ambiguities subtly favoring heresy, which is more dangerous than if it were clearly heretical since a half-heresy half resembles the Truth!
.
Because the New Mass, despite appearances, conveys a New Faith, not the Catholic Faith. It conveys Modernism and follows exactly the tactics of Modernism, using vague terminology in order to insinuate and advance error.
.
Because we recognize the Holy Father’s supreme authority in his universal government of Holy Mother Church, but we know that even this authority cannot impose upon us a practice which is so CLEARLY against the Faith: a Mass that is equivocal and favoring heresy and therefore disagreeable to God.

The preceding and following quotes are found here--------------> catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/latinmass.htm
And perhaps the most disturbing of all:

"Because heresy, or whatever clearly favors heresy, cannot be a matter for obedience. Obedience is at the service of Faith and not Faith at the service of obedience! In this foregoing case then, “One must obey God before men.” (Acts 5:29)

Applying this biblical quote to the Novus Ordo and calling it heresy.
Beware the devil’s attacks against the Holy Church. He is ever ready to lead and astray and devour like a wolf.

 

[piojunbabia]

Of course not. Did I? I think I had stated that both TLM and NO are the Perfect Sacrifice of the Mass. Neither Mass is lacking in that. That is fact. Neither Mass is wrong and neither one teaches error as promoted in the supporting links that were presented above.

Are you prefering to the link i provided?
do you mean that the link i provided contain error? gosh… the link i gave is Catholic Apologetics and it is the eyes of Catholic church. that is what the Catholic has been believing and you say it contain error? CAtholic Apologetics vs New Doctrine of Vatican II? which do you think is the true Catholic view?

dont be so timid in reading, i know the link i provided is very very long and i believe it requires time to understand and comprehend. to have a short reading link here it is. if you think there is error on the link i provided, tell us…its not that long…

1. catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/unmskng.htm#15
2. catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/cranmer.htm

Thank you sir! God bless!

 

[piojunbabia]

---

Teaching/ / The Council of Trent / The New Mass
Practice / /

Lay Readers / “If anyone says that all / At the New
and Lay / Christians [lay people] / Mass, it is quite
Ministers of / the power to administer / usual for lay
Communion / the word [read at Mass] and / people to read
/ all the sacraments / at Mass and to
/ [give out communion], / distribute
/ havelet him be anathema.” / communion.
/ [Canon 10, Session VII, /
/ March 3, 1547] /

Communion / “If anyone say that the Holy / At the New
Under both / Catholic Church has not been / Mass
Species / influenced by just causes and / communion
/ reasons to give communion / under both
/ under the form of bread only… / species is
/ or that she has erred in this, / commonly
/ let him be anathema.” / administered
/ [Canon2, Session XXI, /
/ July 16, 1562] /

The Canon / “If anyone says that the Canon / In the New
of the Mass / of the Mass contain errors, and / Mass, the
/ therefore should ba abrogated, / canon that
/ let him be anathema” / existed in the
/ [Canon 6, Session XXII, / Mass at the
/ September 17, 1562] / time of the
/ / Council of Trent
/ / has been
/ / changed
/ / (this includes
/ / the New
/ / Eucahristic
/ / Prayer I)

The language / “If anyone says that the Rite / At the New
of the Mass / of the Roman Church, according / Mass the whole
/ to which a part of the Canon is / Canon
/ pronounced in a low tone, is to / (Eucharistic
/ be condemned, or that the Mass/ Prayer is said
/ ought to be celebrated in the / out loud, and
/ only… let him be anathema.” / the New Mass
/ Canon 9, Session XXII, / is said entirely
/ September 17, 1562 / in the vernacular
/ / everywhere.

Making / “If anyone says that the / Bishops and
Changes to / recieved and the approved / priests make
the Mass / rites of the Catholic Church… / personalized
/ may be changed by any pastor / changes to the
/ of the churches to any new / New Mass
/ ones: let him be anathema” / whenever they
/[Canon 13 on the Sacraments, / like. (This
/ Session VII, March 3, 1547] / includes adding
/ extra prayers
that are not in
Missal, or leaving
prayers out, or
adding clowns,
balloons or
dancing girls…
Only the Pope
has the authority
to change the
liturgy.

 

[LilyM]

pio, I cant make head or tail of your above post. Repost the information in a legible form please.

 

[piojunbabia]

pio, I cant make head or tail of your above post. Repost the information in a legible form please.

would you suggets if i delete it? it cannot be read anyway…i encoded it for about 20-30 minutes and its useless…

there is no edit botton on that post i cannot delete nor edit that post…

 

[PrayforMallory2]

I would like for the NO Masses at my child’s school to be in Latin. I still wouldn’t prefer it to the TLM, because the TLM better expresses Catholic theology, the authority of the clergy over the laity, the role of the priest as sacrificer, the antiquity of the Church’s dogma, etc.

The big advantage of the NO is its versatility, particular in regards to language, so I don’t really understand the particular appeal of a Solemn Latin NO over a Tridentine High Mass. I’ve never been to a Latin NO. I’ve seen it on EWTN and on the Internet, and it looks awesome, but if you can understand Latin, it still seems less complete theologically than the Tridentine Mass.

Latin NO’s are a good thing, though.

This bunk about Tridentine-Mass goers being “emotional” is a load. It’s absurd to suggest that we’re more emotional than those who prefer Masses in which peppy music, clapping, speaking in tongues, guitars, etc., are employed. It’s true that those things aren’t in every NO, and I’m sure they aren’t in any Latin NO’s, but to suggest that TLM-goers are more “emotional,” when in reality the have the most sobering worship experience possible, is ridiculous.

I think we have confused “emotion” with having good taste and a proper sense of aesthetics. That same “emotion” is in a Latin NO.

As for the comment on chopped liver, could that be explained a little bit? I’m unclear as to how a lay person at a TLM is analogous to chopped liver.

 

[NTOT]

This bunk about Tridentine-Mass goers being “emotional” is a load.

No it is not bunk nor is it a load (of what?). Can you support the claim that ALL Tridentine-Mass goers don’t go for emotional reasons? I highly doubt it, because I can very well introduce you to many who have stated the very reason for their preference is it helps them emotionally to pray with all the rituals and solemn reverence.

It’s absurd to suggest that we’re more emotional than those who prefer Masses in which peppy music, clapping, speaking in tongues, guitars, etc., are employed.

Some folks are turned on by pop music, clapping, speaking in tongues, etc., which have no place in a NO mass. You should know that. Be careful not to confuse the Novus Ordo and Vatican II (btw an official Church Council which to attack is to attack the Church herself) with modernism and other heretical movements not supported by the Church nor produced by the Vatican.

It’s true that those things aren’t in every NO,

They don’t belong in any Novus Ordo Mass.

and I’m sure they aren’t in any Latin NO’s, but to suggest that TLM-goers are more “emotional,” when in reality the have the most sobering worship experience possible, is ridiculous.

Again can you support that ALL TLM-goers are not “emotional”. Further, isn’t “the most sobering worship experience possible” as not being an appeal to emotion a contradiction?