Noticing alot of opposition to the Tridentine Mass

[E.E.N.S]

It is part of the One World Religion. The change in the Mass has evolved into a generic form of worship. Many/most songs during mass are straight from Protestant hymn books.

Soon we will hardly note the difference from Lutheran services or other Protestand forms.

If I wanted to be a protestant I would be one today…but I do NOT.

To quote a couple other posters here…one from each “side” of the aisle…

johnstown johnn does have a point. Much music today does indeed come from protestant hymnals, and some of our Masses do seem very similar to Lutheran services, however we must make the distinction from right and wrong practice, from abuse and from what the Second Vatican Council actually called for. Look at some of the beautiful (and orthodox) Masses being said in places like Lincoln, Denver, and Detroit for example (pic below)…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(PS~ For those who don’t know, this picture is from Assumption Grotto in Detroit, and yes, this is a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated very much in accordance orthodox Catholic teaching.)

 

[anamchara]

It comes down to this Frank: The clear majority of people who oppose the Traditional Latin Mass want to make the Church into their own image and likeness.

I was a novice in a religious order 10 years ago. One of my fellow novices who was as modernist as they come, was talking about our First Vows Mass. We were given the option to pick the music and readings for the Mass. He said to me that he wanted to see my “mark” on the Mass. I replied that the Mass doesn’t belong to me, it belongs to the Church. I said I will only do what the Church approves.

This is the attitude of the clear majority of people who oppose the Traditional Latin Mass. They don’t just oppose, they want it abrogated. Then they can make the Church in *their *own image and likeness.

They repeat the words spoken before the creation of the world: NON SERVUM!

As the above post demonstrates the attitude from the TLM lovers is ultimately what makes people fearful. This post is basically accusing anyone outside of their world as not being Christ centered. I don’t have any problems with the TLM myself, only with the people. With a few exceptions on this forum most TLMers are always accusing the other side of being self-centered or pushing for “innovations”. Heaven for bid if you like a bit of guitar in Mass

To quote a couple other posters here…one from each “side” of the aisle…

John your posts are perfectly written, you said it better then I just did

 

[anamchara]

I won’t argue that the LM would lessen holiness, but quite frankly find it pretty amazing that someone would actually bluntly imply by such a statement that those who prefer a different liturgy are in fact less holy and devoted.

Thank you and Amen

 

[ncjohn]

… however we must make the distinction from right and wrong practice, from abuse and from what the Second Vatican Council actually called for.

Exactly. And that is why I objected to the statements made as they reflect yet another attempt to tar the N.O. Mass by association with whatever abuses might exist.

Having a preference for the TLM is fine. Not caring for the N.O. Mass is fine. Not caring for the music style present at some Masses is fine, though I have to honestly say that I have ever been to any Mass in my life where I personally liked every song presented. Musical taste however is not a reason to denigrate a Mass. Even some of the songs referred to as “coming straight out of a Protestant hymnal” is not a legitimate complaint, as they would not be in the Catholic hymnal if they were not doctrinally sound. Dislike them if you will, but please don’t try to imply that a song can’t be acceptable because a non-Catholic wrote it.

There are plenty of threads on abuses if one wants to complain about abuses. There are plenty of threads on the TLM if one wants to laud the TLM. It is the constant bashing–of either one–that just drives me to distraction, as if we have “superior” Catholics in one or the other. It is exactly that kind of comment that furthers the distrust between people who would otherwise be quite happy to support each other’s wishes, and which makes some who have supported other’s wishes question why they do so just to get beat up on their own preference by those people they are supporting.

I don’t know the answer on how to stop the carnage, but somehow it has to stop before the Church is totally torn apart.

Peace,

 

[anamchara]

Exactly. And that is why I objected to the statements made as they reflect yet another attempt to tar the N.O. Mass by association with whatever abuses might exist.

Having a preference for the TLM is fine. Not caring for the N.O. Mass is fine. Not caring for the music style present at some Masses is fine, though I have to honestly say that I have ever been to any Mass in my life where I personally liked every song presented. Musical taste however is not a reason to denigrate a Mass. Even some of the songs referred to as “coming straight out of a Protestant hymnal” is not a legitimate complaint, as they would not be in the Catholic hymnal if they were not doctrinally sound. Dislike them if you will, but please don’t try to imply that a song can’t be acceptable because a non-Catholic wrote it.

There are plenty of threads on abuses if one wants to complain about abuses. There are plenty of threads on the TLM if one wants to laud the TLM. It is the constant bashing–of either one–that just drives me to distraction, as if we have “superior” Catholics in one or the other. It is exactly that kind of comment that furthers the distrust between people who would otherwise be quite happy to support each other’s wishes, and which makes some who have supported other’s wishes question why they do so just to get beat up on their own preference by those people they are supporting.

I don’t know the answer on how to stop the carnage, but somehow it has to stop before the Church is totally torn apart.

Peace,

Prayers are needed for all this disharmony among the faithful. Once again, well written.

 

[BobP123]

Heaven for bid if you like a bit of guitar in Mass

And where in the documents of Vatican II, which you say you espouse, does it show guitar Masses should be forced down everyone’s throat?

Don’t get me wrong, I like Peter, Paul, Mary guitar music like anyone else. I also like smooth jazz. But I don’t think I’d ever bring that type of music or instrumentation and force a congregation trying to pray to listen to it. I don’t see how it’s possible to pray while you’re being entertained.

 

[BobP123]

I won’t argue that the LM would lessen holiness, but quite frankly find it pretty amazing that someone would actually bluntly imply by such a statement that those who prefer a different liturgy are in fact less holy and devoted.

I don’t think I go to Church feeling more holy and devoted than a person who perhaps doesn’t go to Church at all. I go to worship God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and where I know it’s the Holy Sacrifice without my having to repeat to myself “it is a sacrifice, it is a sacrifice, it is a sacrifice…”

 

[ncjohn]

I go to worship God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and where I know it’s the Holy Sacrifice without my having to repeat to myself “it is a sacrifice, it is a sacrifice, it is a sacrifice…”

I recognize that Bob, and totally respect that. But can you give us equal respect in our ability to find the same thing in the Mass we attend? Can we be allowed to prefer what we prefer without questioning your right to do the same, and without being looked down on because our preference is different?

That’s really all we’re asking here. I know so many good and holy people on both sides of the preference issue. People who are praying the rosary and attending adoration; feeding the poor and comforting the bereaved. And unfortunately I’ve met many others–who may still be good and holy–who are just miserable to be around because it’s all “my way or the highway”.

We all need to remember that the liturgy is not our personal property, and that we are there to worship God. Part of that becomes very hard though when we spend so much time encouraging each other to focus on external preferences rather than God. Every time someone reads one of these threads, their mind is going to be drawn to spending time at Mass seeing if what people are complaining about is present.

In the end we have to ask ourselves whether our mission is to promote a vehicle to worship God, or to help people want to worship God in whichever liturgy they feel called. I think you know the answer to that, however strongly you might feel your preference. I know others whose preference is different than yours, and different from mine, who are just as passionate as either of us about helping people to find God.

Can we just pull up a table with some coffee and donuts, and see if we can’t work on some good strategies to help people find their way back home, rather than giving them reasons to ask why they would want to come back to a bunch of squabbling kids?

Peace,

 

[johnstown_johnn]

having lived through so many variations of music (guitar, trumpet, etc.-) in folk and other forms is like going to a Rock Concert expecting to be in some kind of numbed state but instead the group brings out violins, cellos, French horns and play Franz Schubert, beethoven and Bach.

What I am saying is some music is INAPPROPRIATE for the occasions.

Catholics hymns have NOT lost their spirituality and beauty…or have they?

 

[Joysong]

ncjohn:

I know others whose preference is different than yours, and different from mine, who are just as passionate as either of us about helping people . . . to find God.

Your ending words give the true picture, John. Many posts that we read are only eager to help us to find a perfect liturgy. I have to agree with you that those who go to either liturgy as their preference leads them, with their hearts anxious to meet God and receive Jesus in Eucharist, are often oblivious to those things that irk others. It has been said that these folks are blissfully ignorant or unaware, but I maintain that the focus is so purely on God as not to be disturbed by it — worshipping in spirit and truth.

 

[Joysong]

Reflecting somewhat on this dichotomy between both liturgies, I remembered the example of St. Teresa of Avila. At one critical point when she was preparing to found her order, the Lord permitted her to stay in the home of a very wealthy dona who was accustomed to sumptuous living. Teresa writes that she had to practice a new form of mortification: that of accepting the comfortable, wealthy surroundings which to her were irksome. “Almost everything was a cross for me: the comforts in her house were a real torment to me.” This is the saint who was led by God to found her order in poverty - that her sisters might soar to God and not be absorbed in worldly trappings.

I question whether the pomp of extravagance with respect to adornment of churches is capable thereby of producting an increase in devotion. It seems to me an immature longing that falls in the realm of sensual attachment, that one’s worship is dependent upon multiple statues, stained glass windows, flowers, filigree, incense, etc. If one is unable to worship in churches that are not completely embellished, does it not suggest an immaturity in faith?

Another point that occurred to me is the purity of motive in St. Teresa’s foundations. Never did she criticize the mitigated order she was leaving. Can we say the same of those who continually criticize those who prefer the N.O.? In the end, God caused there to be two orders, that of Teresa’s reform, and the original mitigated order. I note that the reform is the one which produced saints and doctors of the church.

History does teach us many examples, and I pray we may take it to heart so that we may not offend God, who leads each person’s vocation (preference) in a different manner. It is not either/or, but BOTH.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I question whether the pomp of extravagance with respect to adornment of churches is capable thereby of producting an increase in devotion. It seems to me an immature longing that falls in the realm of sensual attachment, that one’s worship is dependent upon multiple statues, stained glass windows, flowers, filigree, incense, etc. If one is unable to worship in churches that are not completely embellished, does it not suggest an immaturity in faith?

Another point that occurred to me is the purity of motive in St. Teresa’s foundations. Never did she criticize the mitigated order she was leaving. Can we say the same of those who continually criticize those who prefer the N.O.? In the end, God caused there to be two orders, that of Teresa’s reform, and the original mitigated order. I note that the reform is the one which produced saints and doctors of the church.

History does teach us many examples, and I pray we may take it to heart so that we may not offend God, who leads each person’s vocation (preference) in a different manner. It is not either/or, but BOTH.

Let’s look at the flip side of the coin, that which is the perspective of the typical “TLM’er”

The typical “TLM’er” does see that the “pomp of extravagance with respect to adornment of churches” is capable of producting an increase in devotion. Where do they get this idea from if not from experience itself? Well, the typical “TLM’er” sees this in the writings of the Church and her saints. He reads in their writings that the decor of the Church and the music therein has two purposes; the glory, honor and adoration of God, and the elevation of the hearts and minds of the faithful to God. Since these are what the Church teaches the typical “TLM’er” sees an adherence to this as obedience, and not so much as preference. (Though mind you I am aware that preference comes into play as well, but it is usually formed by the desires of the Church, so it is - if I may - a “properly formed desire”.

So at the very least, in the mind of the typical “TLM’er” (though I would say it would be more if one will truly try to see so in more of an objective manner), this “longing” is not one of spiritual immaturity, but of spiritual maturity.

A defense from more of an objective perspective would be that their desire to be obedient to the Church’s desires (as shown in her teachings) would indeed be a fruit of spirituality.

A defense one could use from more of a subjective and experiencial manner could be posed as either one of these two questions:

-How often do you hear a typical “TLM’er” quoting Church documents when defending proper liturgical celebration?

-How often do you hear a typical “NO’er” quoting Church documents when defending proper liturgical celebration?​

Now, if you have read enough of my posts you will know that I have defended both the TLM and NO on several occassions. However I have often been accused of wanting the NO banned, as well as any music that isn’t Gregorian Chant, when in fact I have never even slightly approached that position to any degree, the only thing I typically do is quote Church teaching against abuses within the liturgy. I say that at the very least every NO liturgy should have some Gregorian Chant as well as some latin, as this is what the Church teaches. Am I saying that the NO Mass should be abolished and that the only music that should ever be in a liturgy be Gregorian Chant? No, not by any means. What have I learned from being accused of saying just this sort of thing on several occassions? That this is a very sensative topic, and the average person who responds like this is almost completely blinded by there own bias and preconceived ideas to actually take the time to open up and read what is actually being said - whether by the poster or the Church, whichever “side” this person happens to stand on.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Some abuses and exclusions make many of us heartsick.

In my parish, during Mass, the only crucifix in sight is the one carried by the altar boy and set on an angle from the table as the mass is about to begin.

The crucifix is almost obscure enough that if the next mass they didn’t bring it in hardly anyone would notice.

The Sacrifice of the Mass MUST have a cricifix to address the prayers of Consecration.

I get the feeling they are gradually making it disappear altogether in my parish.

Some parishes “wear a band of death around them.” A lot of responsibility lays on the pastors.

 

[anamchara]

And where in the documents of Vatican II, which you say you espouse, does it show guitar Masses should be forced down everyone’s throat?

Don’t get me wrong, I like Peter, Paul, Mary guitar music like anyone else. I also like smooth jazz. But I don’t think I’d ever bring that type of music or instrumentation and force a congregation trying to pray to listen to it. I don’t see how it’s possible to pray while you’re being entertained.

It’s insulting to say it’s “entertainment” if that’s what you think it is then I can see where you are having problems. The music is lifting up to God as well as our hearts and minds. That’s been my experience. As far as forcing? That seems a bit strong Bob, perhaps it’s just who was willing to volunteer. Maybe the pipe organ isn’t working or your parish doesn’t have one. People try the best they can. We are in a very old parish in a farming community. The Organ hasn’t worked in years so we have a piano and my dh plays the guitar and he tries his hardest to make everything about God whenever he plays. He has also played with many others who play and there hearts and minds are always in the right place.

I think people just don’t like it so assume the players intentions which is not fair.

 

[Joysong]

E.E.N.S.:

Well, the typical “TLM’er” sees this in the writings of the Church and her saints. He reads in their writings that the decor of the Church and the music therein has two purposes; the glory, honor and adoration of God, and the elevation of the hearts and minds of the faithful to God. Since these are what the Church teaches the typical “TLM’er” sees an adherence to this as obedience, and not so much as preference.

I’m not sure where you are finding this as Church teaching, but let’s consider the present mind of the Church after the Council.

2.2. The noble simplicity of love

The Gospels describe the human and concrete gestures of Jesus: he walks, he blesses, he touches, he heals, he mixes saliva and mud, he raises his eyes to heaven, he breaks the bread, he takes the cup. These are the gestures repeated in the celebration of the sacraments. But it was above all on the night of his passion that Jesus taught us the gestures that we too must perform. He is our master of liturgical education. His art consists in setting forth the essential in a few simple things. The meaning of the liturgy is revealed only through simplicity and sobriety. «He always loved those who were his own in the world. When the time came for him to be glorified by you his heavenly Father; he showed the depth of his love. While they were at supper he took bread, said the blessing, broke the bread, and gave it to his disciples saying …]. In the same way, he took the cup, filled with wine. He gave you thanks, and giving the cup to his disciples, said …] What is it that made this act of the Lord so beautiful? The way the room was arranged? The way the table was prepared? Fine table linen? Certainly these things bring out its beauty, like a frame which enhances the beauty of a picture.

Yet the real beauty lies in Jesus’ act of redeeming love: «he showed the depth of his love… he took bread». Here lies the beauty of his gesture. Repeating this action of Christ, and recognising in it her Lord’s love, the Church finds it beautiful. The liturgy’s aesthetic value, its beauty, depends primarily therefore not on art, but on the paschal mystery of love. If art is to collaborate with the liturgy it needs to be evangelised by love. The beauty of a Eucharistic celebration essentially depends not on the beauty of architecture, icons, decoration, songs, vestments, choreography and colours, but above all on the ability to reveal the gesture of love performed by Jesus. Through the gestures, words and prayers of the liturgy we strive to repeat and render visible the gestures, prayers and words of the Lord Jesus. This is what the Lord commanded: «Do this in memory of me». The style of our liturgy should be simple and austere, as was the style of Jesus. In our celebrations, according to the Council Fathers, we must master of the art of «noble simplicity» (SC 34).

Beauty in the liturgy always calls for some renunciation on our part: we must renounce banality, over-imagination, extravagance.

If art enobles liturgy and produces “the ability to reveal the gesture of love performed by Jesus” … then we are in a mature focus. If art is expected as “I cannot worship unless the embellishments are all present, or I won’t experience devotion” — then we can hope our brothers and sisters might be enlighted by what is essential, as the Church ever seeks to impart in her teachings.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I’m not sure where you are finding this as Church teaching, but let’s consider the present mind of the Church after the Council.

If art enobles liturgy and produces “the ability to reveal the gesture of love performed by Jesus” … then we are in a mature focus. If art is expected as “I cannot worship unless the embellishments are all present, or I won’t experience devotion” — then we can hope our brothers and sisters might be enlighted by what is essential, as the Church ever seeks to impart in her teachings.

If you read pretty much any encyclical dealing with the liturgy it will say something along the lines of what I mentioned above.

As for your comment “I cannot worship unless embellishments are present…” is a gross misunderstanding of what I was saying and the attitudes of many in the category of person I was describing. Nowhere did I mention the lack of ability to worship. Let’s not start building strawmen, okay?

 

[mshealy]

While we all await Pope Benedict’s document on the TLM, here are some words of wisdom from his most recent official document dealing with the current Mass and liturgy, Sacramentum Caritatis:

“40. Emphasizing the importance of the* ars celebrandi “the art of proper celebration”] also leads to an appreciation of the value of the liturgical norms. The ars celebrandi* should foster a sense of the sacred and the use of outward signs which help to cultivate this sense, such as, for example, the harmony of the rite, the liturgical vestments, the furnishings and the sacred space. The eucharistic celebration is enhanced when priests and liturgical leaders are committed to making known the current liturgical texts and norms, making available the great riches found in the* General Instruction of the Roman Missal* and the* Order of Readings for Mass*. Perhaps we take it for granted that our ecclesial communities already know and appreciate these resources, but this is not always the case. These texts contain riches which have preserved and expressed the faith and experience of the People of God over its two-thousand-year history.” (italics in original)

Pope Benedict was speaking about our current Mass and liturgy. We should all take a CLOSE look at this document and it’s implications for how we should view the current Novus Ordo. I have not seen this document referenced on this thread, but I might have overlooked it. It is a great read for gauging the Pope’s most recent official views on the liturgy. I especially like, “These texts contain riches which have preserved and expressed the faith and experience of the People of God over its two-thousand-year history.” GOOD STUFF

 

[LilyM]

Some abuses and exclusions make many of us heartsick.

In my parish, during Mass, the only crucifix in sight is the one carried by the altar boy and set on an angle from the table as the mass is about to begin.

The crucifix is almost obscure enough that if the next mass they didn’t bring it in hardly anyone would notice.

The Sacrifice of the Mass MUST have a cricifix to address the prayers of Consecration.

Why? The priest isn’t consecrating the Cross during Mass, he’s consecrating the Bread and Wine which becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.

As long as the Mass has Christ really present in the Eucharist - both in the Tabernacle and on the Altar after the Consecration, I don’t see why it truly matters that there’s a cross or not.

(Although of course I understand the GIRM requirement that a crucifix be present, which it is in the case of your Masses).

 

[Joysong]

If you read pretty much any encyclical dealing with the liturgy it will say something along the lines of what I mentioned above.

As for your comment “I cannot worship unless embellishments are present…” is a gross misunderstanding of what I was saying and the attitudes of many in the category of person I was describing. Nowhere did I mention the lack of ability to worship. Let’s not start building strawmen, okay?

I’m not interested in just any encyclical, though you did not reference any of these, but the present mind of the Church’s teaching and the reasons She has moved from extravagance to noble simplicity in the reform of the liturgy. It is this that so many “TLM-ers” perceive as a disruption from the past, with a failure to appreciate the underlying theology for the change.

If you look carefully at my exact words, rather than extrapolate other meanings introspectively, you would note that I said “IF”— using the manner of generalities within the minds of TLM-ers who have posted lamentations that disagree with the Church regarding aesthetics. It is misplaced focus for some.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I’m not interested in just any encyclical, though you did not reference any of these, but the present mind of the Church’s teaching and the reasons She has moved from extravagance to noble simplicity in the reform of the liturgy. It is this that so many “TLM-ers” perceive as a disruption from the past, with a failure to appreciate the underlying theology for the change.

If you look carefully at my exact words, rather than extrapolate other meanings introspectively, you would note that I said “IF”— using the manner of generalities within the minds of TLM-ers who have posted lamentations that disagree with the Church regarding aesthetics. It is misplaced focus for some.

Your “IF” was outside of the quotes and gave an implication outside of my reference, but I digress…

Let’s look at the current mind of the Church in Sacramentum Caritatis:

SC3 (Last sentence) “Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities.”

-This is a very common practice in the days since the Second Vatican Council. This is what we criticize, not the NO itself.

SC40 “Emphasizing the importance of the* ars celebrandi* also leads to an appreciation of the value of the liturgical norms.”

-Two liturgical norms to this very day are Gregorian Chant and Latin, yet these are almost non-existant is 99% of Masses today.

SC40 “The* ars celebrandi* should foster a sense of the sacred and the use of outward signs which help to cultivate this sense, such as, for example, the harmony of the rite, the liturgical vestments, the furnishings and the sacred space.”

SC41 "The profound connection between beauty and the liturgy should make us attentive to every work of art placed at the service of the celebration. (122) Certainly an important element of sacred art is church architecture, (123) which should highlight the unity of the furnishings of the sanctuary, such as the altar, the crucifix, the tabernacle, the ambo and the celebrant’s chair. Here it is important to remember that the purpose of sacred architecture is to offer the Church a fitting space for the celebration of the mysteries of faith, especially the Eucharist. (124) The very nature of a Christian church is defined by the liturgy, which is an assembly of the faithful (ecclesia) who are the living stones of the Church (cf.* 1 Pet *2:5).

This same principle holds true for sacred art in general, especially painting and sculpture, where religious iconography should be directed to sacramental mystagogy. A solid knowledge of the history of sacred art can be advantageous for those responsible for commissioning artists and architects to create works of art for the liturgy. Consequently it is essential that the education of seminarians and priests include the study of art history, with special reference to sacred buildings and the corresponding liturgical norms. Everything related to the Eucharist should be marked by beauty. Special respect and care must also be given to the vestments, the furnishings and the sacred vessels, so that by their harmonious and orderly arrangement they will foster awe for the mystery of God, manifest the unity of the faith and strengthen devotion (125)."

-The current mind of the Church still tells us the purpose of these externals, as I have beforehand mentioned. (Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote a book that adresses these very things in bold, the book is called The Spirit of the Liturgy.)

SC42 "In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place.** (126) …] Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).

(to be continued later…must run for now…)