D
Digitonomy
Guest
I liked New Coke better than old Coke, as did most who did a blind taste test. Not that I liked either one much at all.
- Status
S
Struggling
Guest
And that was Coke’s marketing mistake.
Blind taste tests don’t prove much because people have powerful subjective attachments to things.
A blind test takes things out of context.
But the Tridentine Mass is not only being judged in and of itself…but in the wait of History it carries. This was Mass (more or less) that so many Saints knew! Part if it is not the actual content (though I do like that better) but the ancientness and changelessness of it.
M
Michael_C
Guest
This sounds more like something I hear from the members of SSPX that I work with. Can you give evidence that Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason? Can you also prove that the Pauline mass was constructed to meet the approval of Protestant spectators? I also think it is insulting to say the Mass offered today in Parishes throughout the world is nothing more than a “simple blessing”. If you prefer the the Latin Mass that’s fine. But the Mass I attend is valid and the presence of Christ, Body and Blood are there. I hear so many conspriracy theories, why is it so hard to believe that the changes were made with the best intentions of Bishops and Popes? I support the right for preists to celebrate the Latin Mass and it’s great that for some people it draws them closer to God. I prefer the Mass as it is more commonly found in Catholic Churches now.
S
Sixtus
Guest
ILatin Mass has always been available in the New Rite.
Re introduction of the Tridentine Rite. The New Rite was I believe the will of the Holy Spirit. The mass had become a bit unwieldly and a caretaker Pope became the chosen one to introduce the biggest shakeup in the recent history of the church.
But Pro populo and Tridentine are ‘rites’, it is incorrect to call them ‘masses’. There is but ONE mass and that is regardless of rite.
Re introduction of the Tridentine Rite. The New Rite was I believe the will of the Holy Spirit. The mass had become a bit unwieldly and a caretaker Pope became the chosen one to introduce the biggest shakeup in the recent history of the church.
But Pro populo and Tridentine are ‘rites’, it is incorrect to call them ‘masses’. There is but ONE mass and that is regardless of rite.
R
rien
Guest
Interesting “editorializing” - the latin Mass divided the Church. Don’t think so, but what are facts when one has an agenda.
There is a Catholic host of “God talk” - a radio show here in the Bay Area. He defends to all ends the right on native Americans, Hispanics, wicca and all sorts of groups to return to and embrace their “historic” religious identity. But the Latin Mass, which is histoirc, he slams unceasingly. Claiming Catholics of old were forced to have the priest rurn away from them till Vatican 2. Any read of history will tell you the priest and congregations’ focus was not on each other but faced towards God stemming from early Christian churches which were designed so the congregation and priest faced Jerusalem. That priests in this dioscese still trot out this bogus argument is beyond me - that the congregants buy it is not. Their level of catechisis in virtually non-exisitent.
That said, opening up more use of the latin Rite will not I suspect have much impact. If you look at the Latin Rite churches in the US there is little growth or evangelization to bring in new members. Bishops who fear this are mistaken - I believe those attending even a liberalized presence of the Tridentine Rite will remain a small minority.
The general population including Catholics are secularized and mostly don’t care.
There is a Catholic host of “God talk” - a radio show here in the Bay Area. He defends to all ends the right on native Americans, Hispanics, wicca and all sorts of groups to return to and embrace their “historic” religious identity. But the Latin Mass, which is histoirc, he slams unceasingly. Claiming Catholics of old were forced to have the priest rurn away from them till Vatican 2. Any read of history will tell you the priest and congregations’ focus was not on each other but faced towards God stemming from early Christian churches which were designed so the congregation and priest faced Jerusalem. That priests in this dioscese still trot out this bogus argument is beyond me - that the congregants buy it is not. Their level of catechisis in virtually non-exisitent.
That said, opening up more use of the latin Rite will not I suspect have much impact. If you look at the Latin Rite churches in the US there is little growth or evangelization to bring in new members. Bishops who fear this are mistaken - I believe those attending even a liberalized presence of the Tridentine Rite will remain a small minority.
The general population including Catholics are secularized and mostly don’t care.
R
rpp
Guest
Catholic Theology, teachings, discipline and doctrine are based on three tightly interrelated pillars.
Holy Scripture, Magisterial and Papal authority and Sacred Tradition.
(It is important not to confuse traditions with Sacred Tradition. Traditions have priests where that distinctive collar. Sacred Tradition tells us Mary’s conception was immaculate and that she was assumed bodily into Heaven upon her death.)
You cannot preserve the teachings of the Church if you abondon one of these three critical legs. Can you imagine the Church without the Bible? Eliminate the Magisterium and you get the 30,000+ protestant denoiminations. Eliminate Sacred Tradition and you get all sorts of messes.
The Tridentine Mass is celebrated in a way that reflects the Church’s preservation of the original worship from Apostolic times. This was then codified by Pope Gregory the Great in the 400s then finalized at the Council of Trent under Pope Pius V.
Elimination, and even the outright rejection, of the Tridentine Mass cuts off one of the most important of the Sacred Traditions of the Church. A wider application of this critical and important Tradition can only have a beneficial impact.
Holy Scripture, Magisterial and Papal authority and Sacred Tradition.
(It is important not to confuse traditions with Sacred Tradition. Traditions have priests where that distinctive collar. Sacred Tradition tells us Mary’s conception was immaculate and that she was assumed bodily into Heaven upon her death.)
You cannot preserve the teachings of the Church if you abondon one of these three critical legs. Can you imagine the Church without the Bible? Eliminate the Magisterium and you get the 30,000+ protestant denoiminations. Eliminate Sacred Tradition and you get all sorts of messes.
The Tridentine Mass is celebrated in a way that reflects the Church’s preservation of the original worship from Apostolic times. This was then codified by Pope Gregory the Great in the 400s then finalized at the Council of Trent under Pope Pius V.
Elimination, and even the outright rejection, of the Tridentine Mass cuts off one of the most important of the Sacred Traditions of the Church. A wider application of this critical and important Tradition can only have a beneficial impact.
R
rpp
Guest
One more point…
Worship of the Lord is a profoundly personal activity. The Novus Ordo Mass, while valid, can turn this most important form of worship into a community event. That is not the principal purpose of a Chrstianity.
The numerous “options” have lead some to introduce abuses, such as holding hands during the saying of the “Our Father”, skipping parts of the sacred liturgy, altering the words of consecrtation and the silliness (in America at least) of so-called “litugical dance”.
I have been to some parishes where the Novus Order Mass is celebrated with reverence and dignity. I have been to others where I had to look at the sign in front of the building to determine if it really was a Catholic church. Even then I had doubts.
In both cases, the sense of the mystery of the faith is obscurred or even lost.
The Tridentine Mass offers few options beyond high and low mass. It encourages the personal worship. If someone chooses not to follow along and pray the rosary instead, while certainly not ideal, it is better than someone who is shacking-up with her boyfriend going up for communion the day after she had an abortion, right behind another man who is shacking up with his boyfriend.
Because the Tabernacle and altar, not the priest, is the center of focus, it is a more obvious what is the important at Mass.
I am a recent convert, confirmed in 2005. I have developed a great fondness for the Tridentine Mass. While I would agree it is not for exveryone, particularly new converts, it does encourage and engender a greater sense of holiness than the Novus Ordo Mass.
In short, I would rather have a much smaller and poorer Catholic Church that remains faithful to the teachings of our Lord as preserved in both Scripture and Tradition, than a large and rich organization full of those who equivocate or deny sin and feel free to embrace apostasy and present it as truth.
Worship of the Lord is a profoundly personal activity. The Novus Ordo Mass, while valid, can turn this most important form of worship into a community event. That is not the principal purpose of a Chrstianity.
The numerous “options” have lead some to introduce abuses, such as holding hands during the saying of the “Our Father”, skipping parts of the sacred liturgy, altering the words of consecrtation and the silliness (in America at least) of so-called “litugical dance”.
I have been to some parishes where the Novus Order Mass is celebrated with reverence and dignity. I have been to others where I had to look at the sign in front of the building to determine if it really was a Catholic church. Even then I had doubts.
In both cases, the sense of the mystery of the faith is obscurred or even lost.
The Tridentine Mass offers few options beyond high and low mass. It encourages the personal worship. If someone chooses not to follow along and pray the rosary instead, while certainly not ideal, it is better than someone who is shacking-up with her boyfriend going up for communion the day after she had an abortion, right behind another man who is shacking up with his boyfriend.
Because the Tabernacle and altar, not the priest, is the center of focus, it is a more obvious what is the important at Mass.
I am a recent convert, confirmed in 2005. I have developed a great fondness for the Tridentine Mass. While I would agree it is not for exveryone, particularly new converts, it does encourage and engender a greater sense of holiness than the Novus Ordo Mass.
In short, I would rather have a much smaller and poorer Catholic Church that remains faithful to the teachings of our Lord as preserved in both Scripture and Tradition, than a large and rich organization full of those who equivocate or deny sin and feel free to embrace apostasy and present it as truth.
G
godsknightii
Guest
I am a convert to the Church in 1966 a few recent years after the Novus Ordo and am quite used to the English Mass and I like it very much. However, I see also a need to maintain parameters or boundaries if you will which are necessary in order to maintain its mission. Liberalism is good and essential in that it breaks down unnecessary boundaries that are not essential to the overall mission of the Church. But since 1962 some have gone beyond what was intended and are being called on it - use of levened bread instead of unlevened bread in the form of the host. We need to conserve the past by use of the Latin Mass rather than to abandon it in the name of “progress” I certainly would like to attend the Latin Mass and do see it as something forward not retreat.
B
batteddy
Guest
I am a major supporter of the Tridentine Rite and I think just the OPPOSITE is true.
“worshipping God is personal” is a very PROTESTANT idea.
I’d say it is the Novus Ordo which is **too **“personal”. All the people are expected to listen, personally. To understand, personally. To shake hands with each other, and make the the responses, personally.
The Tridentine Mass is much more communal, as it should be (no man is an island…infants are even baptized before being able to know what is going on…Christ redeemed us not as individuals but as a Church…we can only get ordinarily get grace through that Perfect Society etc…)
In the Tridentine mass, a class of people in society (the clerics) offer worship as representatives of the community (by which I mean the Church). The responses for the community were made by the server. There was one language that was not necessarily that of the individual, etc.
I’d say the Novus Ordo is too “personal”…too meaningful for the individual and not as meaningful for the Church society as a whole. In the N.O. we can all be in the Church together, and still be utterly alone in the ritual sense of the word.
R
rpp
Guest
I think you and I agree more than we disagree. I just (as is often the case) not express myself well.
I am a convert from atheism, confirmed in 2005. From my, admittedly inexperienced perspectice, I believe that worship is both individual and communal. It is not a community event, like a lecture. It is time for reflection, in union with those around you, but essetially individually. Your actions, and behavior, thought and prayers would be no different if you were the only attendee at mass as it would be if you were there with 1,000 others.
That is what I meant by “profoundly individual activity”.
I dislike suddenly diverting my attention just after the miricle of the consecration to shake hands with the person next me (sign of peace) whether I want to or not. It is distraction and has often interrupted moments of critical devotion and prayer to our Lord. Having my hands grasped by some stranger, or even a family member seem utterly incongruous and wrong. (Of course this is wrong and is a liturgical abuse, even if it is common.)
I agree with you that the Novus Order promotes an attitude that is too personal. So personal that it seems the encourage the protestant idea of individual interpretation. This clearly leads to apostasy and moral reletivism. We see this is such “catholic” (small “c”) groups such as Call To Action, Catholics for Choice and Rainbow Sash. These organizations promote apostasy, heresy and moral conduct on grave matters that are not consistent with the Church’s teachings. I think the NO Mass permits this in a way the Tridentine Rite discourages by its focus on communion of the individual and conforming to God’s law and will.
Z
zorrox
Guest
The Mass is the Mass in whatever rite or form it is offered.
Some think the Mass of St Pius V brings out the theology of the Holy Sacrifice more clearly, and according to me if you read the prayers it does.
But the reality of the Sacrifice of the Mass is present in the Mass of Paul VI too. And many people in the pews do not know Latin (or theology) enough so perhaps to some it is more evident in their own tongue.
No one though should feel threatened by the old Mass, that seems a very queer thought to me.
Some think the Mass of St Pius V brings out the theology of the Holy Sacrifice more clearly, and according to me if you read the prayers it does.
But the reality of the Sacrifice of the Mass is present in the Mass of Paul VI too. And many people in the pews do not know Latin (or theology) enough so perhaps to some it is more evident in their own tongue.
No one though should feel threatened by the old Mass, that seems a very queer thought to me.
B
batteddy
Guest
Yes, exactly because it is an Act of the Church, instead of an act of individuals…
P
pnewton
Guest
I think you present a false dichotomy.
I do not think wone has much to do with the other and both elements are essential. But then what do I know. I was raised PROTESTANT and no doubt I am infected for life.
R
Richardols
Guest
Sure. In Brooklyn, NY alone, one can hear the NO Mass in English, Latin, Polish, Spanish, Italian, even in several sub-continental Indian languages, and probably in a few other languages. One can understand it in one’s own tongue. And the Tridentine Rite is also available.
As long as both Rites are available, it’s all win-win.
J
Jaypeeto3
Guest
What would be ideal for me,
would be the Tridentine Mass,
but in the vernacular, following the text of the English translation (NOT BY ICEL !!) of the TLM WORD-FOR-WORD, with the parts that used to be said ONLY by the Altar boys said by both the Altar boys AND the people in the Congregation.
The Tridentine Mass’s prayers are so rich and so beautiful, it would be wonderful to have this mass, word for word, in the vernacular.
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
would be the Tridentine Mass,
but in the vernacular, following the text of the English translation (NOT BY ICEL !!) of the TLM WORD-FOR-WORD, with the parts that used to be said ONLY by the Altar boys said by both the Altar boys AND the people in the Congregation.
The Tridentine Mass’s prayers are so rich and so beautiful, it would be wonderful to have this mass, word for word, in the vernacular.
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
R
rpp
Guest
I think that is what the mainline members of the Second Vatican Council had in mind when they suggested translating the Mass into the vernacular and having people participate more “fully and consciously.”
I think if most of these well meaning bishops had any idea what Archbishop Bugnini and his six protestant friends had in mind when they invented the Novus Ordo Mass in 1968, they would have been a little more specific.
(Yes, for those of you who did not know, six Protestant ministers participated in it’s development. Of course there were other there too, but what business do Protestants have influencing Catholic liturgy?)
P
prv
Guest
Struggling,
Yes, I agree, on this part: there needs to be separation from the sanctuary and the rest of the worship space, whatever it is called—either in choir screens, or whatever—in order to emphasize the sacredness of the sanctuary. Catholic worship spaces need to be set apart for worship—only—not for guest speakers, etc, unless you are on a budget. The clergy are set apart—by ordination, and even in NO masses, they are usually seated away from the congregation.
From the GIRM, Chapter III
That part in bold is hardly done, yet I think it should be so as to remind the people that they are entirely dependent on God to provide ministers for the Church.
I attend OLOA where this is already done (chanted by the deacon) according to the Anglican Use ritual (BDW).
I do not agree on your point regarding the chant CD’s: for some of us, sacred music, whether chant or polyphony, is some of the few things worth listening to. Also, in this new age, where post-VII music is the rage (I will not state my comments, for now, on this matter), people will hardly know what chant and/or polyphony sounds like. How can one say that we need to return to TLM (or whatever Mass you like) if people don’t know what it ever was like?
I do not argue about the TLM—however, it is my contention that if the NO is done properly, then you can can have a reverent celebration.
Yes, I agree, on this part: there needs to be separation from the sanctuary and the rest of the worship space, whatever it is called—either in choir screens, or whatever—in order to emphasize the sacredness of the sanctuary. Catholic worship spaces need to be set apart for worship—only—not for guest speakers, etc, unless you are on a budget. The clergy are set apart—by ordination, and even in NO masses, they are usually seated away from the congregation.
I would advocate that even in NO masses the Prayers of the Faithful should be said—or chanted by the deacon, where there is one.
nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtmlFrom the GIRM, Chapter III
- After the priest, the deacon, in virtue of the sacred ordination he has received, holds first place among those who minister in the Eucharistic Celebration. For the sacred Order of the diaconate has been held in high honor in the Church even from the time of the Apostles.82 At Mass the deacon has his own part in proclaiming the Gospel, in preaching God’s word from time to time, in announcing the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful…
That part in bold is hardly done, yet I think it should be so as to remind the people that they are entirely dependent on God to provide ministers for the Church.
I attend OLOA where this is already done (chanted by the deacon) according to the Anglican Use ritual (BDW).
I do not agree on your point regarding the chant CD’s: for some of us, sacred music, whether chant or polyphony, is some of the few things worth listening to. Also, in this new age, where post-VII music is the rage (I will not state my comments, for now, on this matter), people will hardly know what chant and/or polyphony sounds like. How can one say that we need to return to TLM (or whatever Mass you like) if people don’t know what it ever was like?
I do not argue about the TLM—however, it is my contention that if the NO is done properly, then you can can have a reverent celebration.
P
prv
Guest
Struggling,
From the GIRM, Chapter III
That part in bold is hardly done, yet I think it should be so as to remind the people that they are entirely dependent on God to provide ministers for the Church.
I attend OLOA where this is already done (chanted by the deacon) according to the Anglican Use ritual (BDW).
I do not agree on your point regarding the chant CD’s: for some of us, sacred music, whether chant or polyphony, is some of the few things worth listening to. Also, in this new age, where post-VII music is the rage (I will not state my comments, for now, on this matter), people will hardly know what chant and/or polyphony sounds like. How can one say that we need to return to TLM (or whatever Mass you like) if people don’t know what it ever was like?
I do not argue about the TLM—however, it is my contention that if the NO is done properly, then you can can have a reverent celebration.
Finally, bring back more Latin to the NO Mass!
I’ll admit, my post is a little off topic. We can search another thread for this.
Yes, I agree, on this part: there needs to be separation from the sanctuary and the rest of the worship space, whatever it is called—either in choir screens, or whatever—in order to emphasize the sacredness of the sanctuary. Catholic worship spaces need to be set apart for worship—only—not for guest speakers, etc, unless you are on a budget (campus ministry centers, etc). Even then, you can probably make some adjustments for separation of the liturgy and the profane. The clergy are set apart—by ordination, and even in NO masses, they are usually seated away from the congregation. I would advocate that even in NO masses the Prayers of the Faithful should be said—or chanted—by the deacon, where there is one.
nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtmlFrom the GIRM, Chapter III
- After the priest, the deacon, in virtue of the sacred ordination he has received, holds first place among those who minister in the Eucharistic Celebration. For the sacred Order of the diaconate has been held in high honor in the Church even from the time of the Apostles.82 At Mass the deacon has his own part in proclaiming the Gospel, in preaching God’s word from time to time, in announcing the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful…
That part in bold is hardly done, yet I think it should be so as to remind the people that they are entirely dependent on God to provide ministers for the Church.
I attend OLOA where this is already done (chanted by the deacon) according to the Anglican Use ritual (BDW).
I do not agree on your point regarding the chant CD’s: for some of us, sacred music, whether chant or polyphony, is some of the few things worth listening to. Also, in this new age, where post-VII music is the rage (I will not state my comments, for now, on this matter), people will hardly know what chant and/or polyphony sounds like. How can one say that we need to return to TLM (or whatever Mass you like) if people don’t know what it ever was like?
I do not argue about the TLM—however, it is my contention that if the NO is done properly, then you can can have a reverent celebration.
Finally, bring back more Latin to the NO Mass!
I’ll admit, my post is a little off topic. We can search another thread for this.
C
catholic2
Guest
While B16 is older than I am, I wager I’m older than most who have posted here, as I still remember my latin responses as an altar server. I do miss the quiet comforting atmosphere of the TLM where one could be left undisturbed and concentrate on personal worship of God, and not have to deal with handshaking and holding hands. Back then there was a rapport between worshipers, because we understood and respected each one’s spiritual journey even in a strange country. Back then we were not herded to recieve communion, and I think we were more serious and aware of what we were doing in that reception. Back then the nuns wore their habits, the seminaries were filled, and the Priesthood was looked upon with great respect and they really deserved it.
- Status