McBrien absolutely RIPS the TLM

[mary_bobo]

I’m speechless. I’m watching this right now, having never actually seen a TLM before. Why would anyone in their right mind work so hard to get this abolished? I feel like I’ve been robbed of my liturgical heritage.
:nope:

Maybe some of the people fighting the TLM have never been to one. I don’t mean we should scrap the NO, I don’t expect or want that to happen. But the TLM is so dignified and so moving. Seemingly dignity has gone out the window what with the well worn blue jeans and sandals at Mass. But that’s just me.

 

[TNT]

I wouldn’t believe anything McBrien said, right down to his name, unless he produced his birth certificate to prove that. Even then, I would check with the Bureau of Vital Statistics to see if the information matched and ask him for an inked footprint to compare.

DITTO ON HIS BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATE!!

What was that about freemasonry?..Oh yea, currupt from WITHIN. Job well done.
The sig is again so handy:
To destroy a Religion, you must first sever its traditions.

Near the end of this 2min video you can see/hear his lame comment on the TLM. Crite Fox News.

 

[Brain]

McBrien is still ALIVE!?!
I thought he was long dead folk hero of dissent.

 

[TNT]

I’m speechless. I’m watching this right now, having never actually seen a TLM before. Why would anyone in their right mind work so hard to get this abolished? I feel like I’ve been robbed of my liturgical heritage.
:nope:

You were.
Your question is answered in my sig.

 

[Anima_Christi]

I wonder why you feel the need to put the two rites in opposition? Why not simply talk about why you prefer the TLM?

I don’t know anyone who pays any attention to McBrien anyway.

JKirkLVNV…why go on pretending like they are two equal rites? I mean, either the Novus Ordo is an *improvement *over the Traditional rite, or it wasn’t. There really can be no middle ground on this issue. If the Novus Ordo wasn’t an improvement (and it certainly wasn’t), what was it? Why was it created? What were the ulterior motives behind it? What has it resulted in? Why not go back to the Mass we have been celebrating for more than a thousand years and ditch this 36 year-old artificial, banal, inferior protestantized liturgy (and before you object there is plain evidence that it is artificial and protestantized…this really isn’t something you can argue with).

What I want to know is, why are guys like McBrien still in good standing with Rome while priests and bishops who are merely carrying on the faith as it has been taught for 2,000 years excommunicated and have their faculties “suspended”?? I wonder if St. Peter would have stood silently while men like McBrien spew their heretical filth all over the Catholic world for anyone to be infected with. For that matter, I wonder if any pope prior to Paul VI and John Paul II (and apparently now Benedict XVI) would have allowed it? Guess we’re in the New Springtime!

 

[rpp]

There must be something very positive and good in the TLM for there to be so much opposition against it.

Christ said that people will hate and revile those who follow him. Are McBrien tirades examples of this?

 

[manualman]

Anima Christi,

Vitriol might feel good when you are pounding it out on the keyboard, but it sure doesn’t constructively help anything. CAF made this forum for helpful ideas, suggestions and discourse. Posts like the above are likely to kill the whole subforum.

I’m no fan of Father McBrien, but I gotta hand ONE thing to him. He sure knows where the line is and stays 0.001" on this side of the major consequences point. You can find a LOT of places where he implies and infers certain heretical things. But you can’t nail him down on any iron clad statement that directly contradicts dogma. On the other hand, many of those you reference have, possibly out of frustration, made rash statements in direct contradiction of the catholic faith or canon law (like condemning the teaching of a valid ecumenical council and ordaining bishops in defiance of the pope’s orders).

It is a feature of imperfect human justice that a smart heretic (generically speaking, of course) can sometimes enjoy the benefits of the church while sincere believing, but rash men suffer sanction. But fear not, God’s justice is perfect and inevitable.

I think we are likely to see Latin make a comeback in the NO. I’ve noticed the Kyrie and Agnus Dei showing up again. And people are liking it. No reason that we can’t have a portion of the mass use latin and the rest be vernacular.

Just about any of us have old relatives that do or used to bring and say theri rosaries through TLM, especially low ones. That’s a pretty good hint that they WANTED to connect spiritually, but found the TLM inaccessible. I suggest that the IDEA of the NO is not so much flawed (aka, modifications intended to encourage participation by the faithful) as the culture we live in. SURE, the indult TLM’s are amazing and powerful gatherings of the faithful with intense participation. Because there is usually just one in a diocese and it attracts those willing to make great sacrifices for it. But implement it tommorrow in all diocesan parishes and you’ll have the same pewsitters counting sprinklers in the ceiling as you do today. Indult TLM works because it concentrates a critical mass of intense believers together. And it’s a beautiful thing. But it isn’t a magic bullet. I’ve been to NO masses with a similar crowd of faith-filled believers and it was gorgeous enough to almost literally take your breath away (in spite of the strip mall architecture and inferior grade of songs produced by our contemporary culture compared to the classics).

 

[Wolseley]

Well, to quote the Bellamy Brothers, “Him and his kind get more endangered every day, and pretty soon the species will just up and fade away.”

“He’s an old hippie and he don’t know what to do
Should he hang on to the old
Should he grab on to the new
He’s an old hippie…his new life is just a bust
He ain’t trying to change nobody
He’s just trying real hard to adjust.”

 

[ComradeAndrei]

An article like that written by Fr. McBrien about the “old days” could easily be changed a bit and voila it would be about today. He makes a good point that I think he either doesn’t realize or doesn’t point out because it doesn’t fit his schema of “FutureChurch” in that your average parish has lots of pew warmers. True in 1957, true in 2007. The point of the Liturgical Renewal envisioned by the likes of Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII was to actually get people involved, full and active participation-first and foremost on a spiritual level. What did Pius X say way back in the early 1900’s? Don’t pray at Holy Mass, pray the Holy Mass!

I think he also needs to read the Vatican II documents. The ecclesiology of the Church didn’t really “change” in the sense of democratizing the Church or puting the laity on a new pedestal. It just emphasized the constant teaching of the Church in a new light that everyone, clergy and laity, make up the Church. I think more than anything, it was a call to the laity that they need to realize that they are called to holiness just as the clergy are and that doing the absolute bare minimum isn’t living out that call to holiness. It wasn’t wresting away power from the Hierarchy and “freeing” the people at all.

The article is basically trash, tell the “horror stories” of the 1950’s so that the people who are liturgically ignorant will think “Thank God we don’t have that awful Latin Mass anymore.” The major battle we fight is ignorance and populism. We know that those with a progressive agenda use this to their advantage because they are free to do what they want to liturgy when people in the pews either don’t know or don’t really care what is going on. Then they appeal to “what the people want” when they’ve used that ignorance to tell the people that they don’t want the traditional Mass.

 

[Trident59]

McBrien must be related to Fr. Jan Larson of our liberal Seattle Archdiocese. Larson writes occassionally for the various Northwest Catholic papers.

 

[drforjc]

Palmas85,

McBrien also believes that the Pope needs to reverse the doctrine of Papal infallibility among other things.

But would that reversal be infallible or not??

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

I wonder if St. Peter would have stood silently while men like McBrien spew their heretical filth all over the Catholic world for anyone to be infected with. For that matter, I wonder if any pope prior to Paul VI and John Paul II (and apparently now Benedict XVI) would have allowed it? Guess we’re in the New Springtime!

the pope is not the ultimate micromanager and neither was st. peter. the problem lies entirely with the american bishops. why doesn’t the bishop where notre dame is silence mcbride? magnify mcbride a thousand times and that is what you have to deal with as the pope. the pope is not the bishop of bishops. he’s the center of unity and not the doctrinal watchdog of all the diocese in the world.

i agree that the novus ordo mass has problems and that it is a break in tradition. i just feel that the closer you are to the problem, the more responsible you should be. notre dame has so much finacial and allumni support that bishops are afraid to do anything about it for fear of reprisal.

it remindes me of mayor nagin and govenor blanco blaming bush for the katrina debacle.

 

[RonRule]

I think I finally understand the observation of more reverence at the TLM Mass. Its like the statistic that only 2 percent of couples using NFP get divorced. It is composed of a self selected group who have a deeper respect for the Church, its teachings, and practices, whereas most NO Masses include some of the select group, but many more unwashed who either don’t have a clue or just don’t give a rip about such things nor would they appreciate a concert of Classical music.

rwoehmke,

I don’t post much on the CA forums, but I had to pipe up about this because you hit the nail on the head. Your point deserves repeating in every unnecessary and bitter argument like “TLM vs. NO”.

It’s the same problem you run into when comparing a smaller, intentional “Bible Church” where everyone follows the Lord whole-heartedly to your local Catholic parish. The non-denom church has no place for nominal adherents. The skewed result often has more to do with sociological phenomena than the inherent value of one system (catholic vs. non-denom) or liturgy (TLM vs. NO).

With this in mind, how do we remove some of this polarization of Catholic practice? I think a big step would be requiring territorial parishes again.

 

[sir_galahad]

rwoehmke,

I don’t post much on the CA forums, but I had to pipe up about this because you hit the nail on the head. Your point deserves repeating in every unnecessary and bitter argument like “TLM vs. NO”.

It’s the same problem you run into when comparing a smaller, intentional “Bible Church” where everyone follows the Lord whole-heartedly to your local Catholic parish. The non-denom church has no place for nominal adherents. The skewed result often has more to do with sociological phenomena than the inherent value of one system (catholic vs. non-denom) or liturgy (TLM vs. NO).

With this in mind, how do we remove some of this polarization of Catholic practice? I think a big step would be requiring territorial parishes again.

But forbidding people from joining a Latin Mass parish would increase the polarization by denying traditional Catholics our beloved Mass.

 

[rtconstant]

My first contact with Catholicism was the TLM. Later when I converted it was the Novus Ordo I was surprised by the difference. The parish I go to now NO and I like because we have a good priest who kind of makes “alive” because of his faith, love and sincerity. Still I know that I have in the past been perplexed by the NO.

Now I can fully appreciate the idea of wanting to bring the mass into the vernacular. There are many practical reasons for this. Still what I’m confused about is that they didn’t just start praying the Tridentine Mass in the local language. Keep the form and words and just say it in the language of the people. I don’t know if there is a rule to this that makes it impossible If so then I apologize for my ignorance. I just never could figure that out. I still have a Mariam Missal that had an excellent translation in it.

Also for the traditionalists. I’m not throwing that out there to say that the Trident shouldn’t be performed in Latin. I simply stating the above because I’ve never been able to figure out why the decision was made to change the mass as opposed translating it if they wanted more participation or understanding and such. I don’t know if any of this makes sense.

 

[TNT]

My first contact with Catholicism was the TLM. Later when I converted it was the Novus Ordo I was surprised by the difference. The parish I go to now NO and I like because we have a good priest who kind of makes “alive” because of his faith, love and sincerity. Still I know that I have in the past been perplexed by the NO.

Now I can fully appreciate the idea of wanting to bring the mass into the vernacular. There are many practical reasons for this. Still what I’m confused about is that they didn’t just start praying the Tridentine Mass in the local language. Keep the form and words and just say it in the language of the people. I don’t know if there is a rule to this that makes it impossible If so then I apologize for my ignorance. I just never could figure that out. I still have a Mariam Missal that had an excellent translation in it.

Also for the traditionalists. I’m not throwing that out there to say that the Trident shouldn’t be performed in Latin. I simply stating the above because I’ve never been able to figure out why the decision was made to change the mass as opposed translating it if they wanted more participation or understanding and such. I don’t know if any of this makes sense.

Um,
Because the language into the vernacular was only ONE element of the whole plan.
I’ll try to give a brief but adequate presentation.
The TLM is VERY “catholic beliefs/practice only” in many parts of its liturgy (incl. readings, prayers, etc.).
Examples would be:
the Mass as a true re-enactment of the SACRIFICE of Calvary.
Its Confiteor uses the praying to saints, especially Mary. Plus the asking of forgiveness of our sins.
Explicite commemoration of the deceased.

All of these are anathema to many protestant sects, especially the Lutherans & Presbyterian once-saved-always-saved.

The NO mass was designed from top to bottom to be Ecumenical (interfaith)…so that it could be used in any MAINLINE (Episcopalian, Anglican, Luthren, Presbyterian) protestant service with very few alterations. Inoffensive to any of their beliefs. Of course it was much easier to smother the Catholic-only point of view as well.

The TLM is seen as very anti-Ecumenical and that is why it is now only under indult. An indult not allowed by about 45% of the US bishops…becuase it is offensive to the “separated brethren”.

The NO mass is “flexible” with numerous Eucharistic Prayers, some of which obscure the exclusive catholic beliefs so that they can be used by non-catholics. Plus the movements become less and less catholic-only such as communion rail kneeling, receipt on the tongue, precious metal repositories for Host & blood…err wine, genuflecting before seating in front of the Tabernacle.
In other words, one religious worship platform for all the main sects & the catholics. That was the intent.

The TLM cannot ever fit in that mold. It is way too exclusively catholic and rigid regarding innumerable variations.

Has the NO mass done what was intended? Perhaps yes or no. It has really been used too much as a platform of personal preference for the modern catholic clergy & laity which frequently gets out of hand. Instead of bringing non-catholics into this platform of worship more easily, yet maintaining reverence, it just as often drives traditional minded catholics out.

It got so bad that the church reopened the availability of the TLM in order to provide a refuge to the tradtional catholic mindset and keep them from fleeing to breakaway groups that did offer the TLM in all its catholicity…exclusive of ecumenical intrusions.

That’s where we are today.
The bizarre modifications to the NO mass by local clergy (even bishops) is becoming near impossible to restrain…a circumstance not really thought out well by the modern popes.
If the cattle have no fence, they will roam wild and so become wild. The church did not really realize (or denied) that large groups people need universal rules that can be ENFORCED. They held that man is good & will do good if given free reign. Of course history proved otherwise & so even to this day.
Disciplie & restraint is NOT natural for everyone.
In summary:
The TLM is Ecumenically unfit.
The NO is so ambiguously treated as to become uncontrollable in our own house.

Take yur pick.

 

[palmas85]

Palmas85,

But would that reversal be infallible or not??

Good question.

Oh well

 

[rpp]

Um,
Because the language into the vernacular was only ONE element of the whole plan.
I’ll try to give a brief but adequate presentation.
The TLM is VERY “catholic beliefs/practice only” in many parts of its liturgy (incl. readings, prayers, etc.).
Examples would be:
the Mass as a true re-enactment of the SACRIFICE of Calvary.
Its Confiteor uses the praying to saints, especially Mary. Plus the asking of forgiveness of our sins.
Explicite commemoration of the deceased.

All of these are anathema to many protestant sects, especially the Lutherans & Presbyterian once-saved-always-saved.

The NO mass was designed from top to bottom to be Ecumenical (interfaith)…so that it could be used in any MAINLINE (Episcopalian, Anglican, Luthren, Presbyterian) protestant service with very few alterations. Inoffensive to any of their beliefs. Of course it was much easier to smother the Catholic-only point of view as well.

The TLM is seen as very anti-Ecumenical and that is why it is now only under indult. An indult not allowed by about 45% of the US bishops…becuase it is offensive to the “separated brethren”.

The NO mass is “flexible” with numerous Eucharistic Prayers, some of which obscure the exclusive catholic beliefs so that they can be used by non-catholics. Plus the movements become less and less catholic-only such as communion rail kneeling, receipt on the tongue, precious metal repositories for Host & blood…err wine, genuflecting before seating in front of the Tabernacle.
In other words, one religious worship platform for all the main sects & the catholics. That was the intent.

The TLM cannot ever fit in that mold. It is way too exclusively catholic and rigid regarding innumerable variations.

Has the NO mass done what was intended? Perhaps yes or no. It has really been used too much as a platform of personal preference for the modern catholic clergy & laity which frequently gets out of hand. Instead of bringing non-catholics into this platform of worship more easily, yet maintaining reverence, it just as often drives traditional minded catholics out.

It got so bad that the church reopened the availability of the TLM in order to provide a refuge to the tradtional catholic mindset and keep them from fleeing to breakaway groups that did offer the TLM in all its catholicity…exclusive of ecumenical intrusions.

That’s where we are today.
The bizarre modifications to the NO mass by local clergy (even bishops) is becoming near impossible to restrain…a circumstance not really thought out well by the modern popes.
If the cattle have no fence, they will roam wild and so become wild. The church did not really realize (or denied) that large groups people need universal rules that can be ENFORCED. They held that man is good & will do good if given free reign. Of course history proved otherwise & so even to this day.
Disciplie & restraint is NOT natural for everyone.
In summary:
The TLM is Ecumenically unfit.
The NO is so ambiguously treated as to become uncontrollable in our own house.

Take yur pick.

This was one of the most fair and even-handed comparison/contrasts of the two Masses I have seen. Nicely done!

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Because the language into the vernacular was only ONE element of the whole plan.
I’ll try to give a brief but adequate presentation.
The TLM is VERY “catholic beliefs/practice only” in many parts of its liturgy (incl. readings, prayers, etc.).
Examples would be:
the Mass as a true re-enactment of the SACRIFICE of Calvary.
Its Confiteor uses the praying to saints, especially Mary. Plus the asking of forgiveness of our sins.
Explicite commemoration of the deceased.

All of these are anathema to many protestant sects, especially the Lutherans & Presbyterian once-saved-always-saved.

All of that is true, but…

The NO mass was designed from top to bottom to be Ecumenical (interfaith)…so that it could be used in any MAINLINE (Episcopalian, Anglican, Luthren, Presbyterian) protestant service with very few alterations. Inoffensive to any of their beliefs. Of course it was much easier to smother the Catholic-only point of view as well.

Then why isn’t the NO Mass used in any mainline protestant sect? The Anglicans and Episcopalians still use their Book of Common Prayer, the Methodists still use their prayer books, the Lutheran still use their own thing and so do the Presbyterians and any other protestant group I can think of. The only protestants that I can think of that use a Catholic Mass are certain High Church Anglicans who use an English Tridentine Mass.

The TLM is seen as very anti-Ecumenical and that is why it is now only under indult. An indult not allowed by about 45% of the US bishops…becuase it is offensive to the “separated brethren”.

I would think that it is more because certain bishops and clergy just want their “FutureChurch”. I think the false ecumenism plays a part, but that isn’t the only thing involved.

The NO mass is “flexible” with numerous Eucharistic Prayers, some of which obscure the exclusive catholic beliefs so that they can be used by non-catholics.

Yet the protestants still think its too sacrificial and too Catholic for their own use. While I do think we’re missing a lot with some of these Eucharistic Prayers (give me the Roman Canon any day) I don’t think “ecumenism” was the only issue.

Plus the movements become less and less catholic-only such as communion rail kneeling, receipt on the tongue, precious metal repositories for Host & blood…err wine, genuflecting before seating in front of the Tabernacle.
In other words, one religious worship platform for all the main sects & the catholics. That was the intent.

Lots of Episcopalians, Anglicans and Lutherans still use a communion rail and receive on the tongue. Our lessing of the use of communion rails, reception on the tongue, proper tabernacles and genuflection can be chalked up to modernism more than anything. We have people that don’t want to “protestantize” the Church, they want to “modernize” it. Protestanism is passe to them, they want to go way beyond that.

The TLM cannot ever fit in that mold. It is way too exclusively catholic and rigid regarding innumerable variations.

That much I agree with, you really can’t bring about some touchy-feely Protestant/Catholic “church” or “FutureChurch” with the traditional Mass.

There were definately certain people who were chomping at the bit to throw off all the rubrics and rules of the “pre-Vatican II” Church but I don’t see it as a protestant thing, just modernism pure and simple.

 

[TNT]

RE:

Then why isn’t the NO Mass used in any mainline protestant sect? The Anglicans and Episcopalians still use their Book of Common Prayer, the Methodists still use their prayer books, the Lutheran still use their own thing and so do the Presbyterians and any other protestant group I can think of. The only protestants that I can think of that use a Catholic Mass are certain High Church Anglicans who use an English Tridentine Mass.

As best I can tell, A missouri Synod worship is nearly indetectable from the NO.
In any case, to answer yur point. Just because they thought it would become an interfaith model of worship does NOT mean they were correct. VAT II had a host of ideas & beliefs that have proved far too optimistic in the real world.
By not mentioning other underlying motives does not mean I reject them.
All I was pointing to is the main reason that they would not just use a vernacular TLM. That’s all.