Preference Poll on Liturgy TLM - NO

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JRKH

Guest
There have been a number of posts regarding the Motu Proprio on the TLM. These posts generally have to do with how much interest there actually is in the TLM vs the NO.

So I would like to conduct a poll in two parts. The first three selections relate to how you feel about the N.O. in general, while the second four look to guage your personal interest in the TLM.

I am posting this in Liturgy and Sacraments in order to get a good cross section of opinions. While I realize that we are scattered across the world, I think the results should be fairly accurate and interesting too.

Please select:
One from the first 3 choices and
One from the second 4 choices
OR just select the last choice if you have no opinion at all.

The reasons for your choice are, of course welcome, but please keep your tone civil and christian.
 
NO is fine for now. TLM, while it is what some prefer looses the common people and there were reasons VII changed it.
 
I should have read your post first. :o

I’ve started going to a TLM about 40 miles away in the next diocese so I voted that I prefer the TLM. Regarding the NO, it would need major work for me to attend that on a regular basis anymore.
 
Can we please stop with the myth that the TLM looses the people? It’s like my entire generation and my parents and my grandparents, etc. all just stood there dumbfounded and had no idea what was going on. This is just simply wrong. And an insult to those of us who did indeed know precisely what was going on.

I watched a very, very reverent NO hybrid Mass on EWTN on Thursday night. Although the Consecration was in English the young Argentinian priest said “This…Is…My…Body” -a clear reflection on the TLM “Hoc…est…enim…corpus…meam”. I have seldom heard English rendered as precisely in a NO.

Do I want to go back to the TLM of my childhood? Surprisingly, no. Do I want reverence restored to the NO, more use of Latin, more use of that which makes us identifiable as Catholic? At a very minimum, yes. I keep repeating the same thing over and over…the move to the NO was mandated by HMC. We, the faithful, followed out of obedience to the magisterium followed along. What followed was not what we expected or wanted.

In a very real way we are a single church divided by entirely different sets of experiences. Face it…there is an entire generation of baby boomers who grew up with the TLM. Not all of us were happy with the TLM. That’s fine. There were, however, large numbers of us who were happy with the TLM but who silenced themselves in subjection to the magesterium.

And then there are the generations who came after who have little experience of what it was to be Catholic before 1970. Some of these young folks have found the TLM and embraced it.
Others have bought into the myths that have been promulgated in the years after (e.g. oh, Latin is too hard. Oh, no one understood the Mass back then).

Do I want a return to the TLM? No. Do I want a return to reverence; to the traditions I have known since I was a child; do I want to return to a clear Catholic identity? Yes.

The pendulum is swinging back. This time, the voices of those who were not heard in the 60s will be heard and we will join with our younger brothers and sisters. Enough is enough.
 
I only picked one for the TLM (should be used more) because I didn’t feel right picking one of the NO choices. Yes, I think it needs to be changed, but I didn’t think “too stuffy” or “not reverent enough” did justice to the issue.
 
brotherhrolf said:
Do I want a return to the TLM? No. Do I want a return to reverence; to the traditions I have known since I was a child; do I want to return to a clear Catholic identity? Yes.
Click to expand...
Me too. I just want a reverent mass. I would love it if every NO was like that. Sadly, many aren’t. That’s why so many of us young’uns are drawn to the TLM, because we’re not seeing the reverence that should be given to Christ in most NOs.
Do I want only TLM? No. I’m a convert, and I doubt I would have converted if I had only the TLM to see, because I wouldn’t have understood any of it. So I’m glad there is a vernacular mass, I just wish it was more reverent in most cases. 😦
 
N.O. prefered- been to a TLM and would like to see more use of it. Been to several different Eastern Rite Liturgies and plan to attend again when they happen to be available where I happen to be.
 
I’m 22, baptized and confirmed in the post-vatican 2 way. I attended TLM for 3 years now, and never attended the NOM since then. I prefer the TLM because it is more different than the NOM and more Catholic than the new. I don’t want to say that NOM is invalid; it is up to the Holy See to amend the new Mass or to reform the reform. For me I greatly prefer the TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS because many saints and popes prayed and celebrated it, so I don’t see it to be old, invalid, nostalgic, outdated, or whatsoever, for I see it as the true and genuine Catholic Mass of all time.

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christus
Instaurare omnia in Christo
 
brotherhrolf said:
Can we please stop with the myth that the TLM looses the people? It’s like my entire generation and my parents and my grandparents, etc. all just stood there dumbfounded and had no idea what was going on. This is just simply wrong. And an insult to those of us who did indeed know precisely what was going on.

I watched a very, very reverent NO hybrid Mass on EWTN on Thursday night. Although the Consecration was in English the young Argentinian priest said “This…Is…My…Body” -a clear reflection on the TLM “Hoc…est…enim…corpus…meam”. I have seldom heard English rendered as precisely in a NO.

Do I want to go back to the TLM of my childhood? Surprisingly, no. Do I want reverence restored to the NO, more use of Latin, more use of that which makes us identifiable as Catholic? At a very minimum, yes. I keep repeating the same thing over and over…the move to the NO was mandated by HMC. We, the faithful, followed out of obedience to the magisterium followed along. What followed was not what we expected or wanted.

In a very real way we are a single church divided by entirely different sets of experiences. Face it…there is an entire generation of baby boomers who grew up with the TLM. Not all of us were happy with the TLM. That’s fine. There were, however, large numbers of us who were happy with the TLM but who silenced themselves in subjection to the magesterium.

And then there are the generations who came after who have little experience of what it was to be Catholic before 1970. Some of these young folks have found the TLM and embraced it.
Others have bought into the myths that have been promulgated in the years after (e.g. oh, Latin is too hard. Oh, no one understood the Mass back then).

Do I want a return to the TLM? No. Do I want a return to reverence; to the traditions I have known since I was a child; do I want to return to a clear Catholic identity? Yes.

The pendulum is swinging back. This time, the voices of those who were not heard in the 60s will be heard and we will join with our younger brothers and sisters. Enough is enough.
Click to expand...
Well said! I don’t want to see the TLM exclusively, but I DO want to see it offered as commonly as the NO, and I would like the NO be be offered as it was meant to be - in an extremely traditional and reverent fashion.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
NO is fine for now. TLM, while it is what some prefer looses the common people and there were reasons VII changed it.
Click to expand...
There are no douments of vatican II that changed the Mass.

Vatican II ended in 1965 and the new Mass was born in 1969.

Could you please point me to the documents of Vatican II that called for the Novus Ordo.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
I only picked one for the TLM (should be used more) because I didn’t feel right picking one of the NO choices. Yes, I think it needs to be changed, but I didn’t think “too stuffy” or “not reverent enough” did justice to the issue.
Click to expand...
This was my view. I’d like to see more of the TLM but I don’t expect I would attend it very often.

I’d like to see the NO improved, but the phrases, “too stuffy” or “not reverent enough” don’t really cover my concerns.

I very much want variety in the way the Mass is celebrated. I want Masses to reflect the character of a given parish and I expect that Masses at a given parish will have changing characters as the liturgical seasons change.

But I expect that a very ‘upbeat’ (for lack of a better term) Mass to be reverent and I expect that the most somber of Masses will not be stuffy. I want to see all types of Music used at Mass but I want the music done well according to the genre.
 
The Pope is (or has been) a frequent critic of the NO, in fact, calling it a fabrication. He needs not say more. My vote is for one Catholic culture, more TLM.
 
SMHW said:
This was my view. I’d like to see more of the TLM but I don’t expect I would attend it very often.

I’d like to see the NO improved, but the phrases, “too stuffy” or “not reverent enough” don’t really cover my concerns.

I very much want variety in the way the Mass is celebrated. I want Masses to reflect the character of a given parish and I expect that Masses at a given parish will have changing characters as the liturgical seasons change.

But I expect that a very ‘upbeat’ (for lack of a better term) Mass to be reverent and I expect that the most somber of Masses will not be stuffy. I want to see all types of Music used at Mass but I want the music done well according to the genre.
Click to expand...
One of the problems we face today is just this. Too much variety. It becomes too distracting when you go to a different Church and there is a wide variance to what you are use to. That is part of the reason I would like to see the TLM make a worldwide comeback. Providing the TLM as a broad based option allows people to attend mass anywhere and get the same thing.

In the “Olden Days” a catholic could go into any catholic church anywhere in the world and get the same mass. The music might vary, and you wouldn’t understand the serman, but the liturgy would be the same.

Like I said earlier, don’t supplant the N.O. just recognize the TLM as the revered older brother in the liurgy and embrace it as such.

James
 
Back in the 50s and 60s, I could go to Mass anywhere and it would be the same. I can’t say the same thing about today.

There were no Mass settings, hymns or motets composed by the musicians of my parent’s generation. See if you can find anything composed by Glenn Miller, Tommy Dorsey, Benny Goodman et al. There are no big band Masses but there is a whole slew of Masses, hymns, etc. which came from the pop music of my generation. There are entire celebrations with electric guitars and drums which bear absolutely no semblance to the music which went before. Why is the folk idiom of my generation acceptable but “big band” is not much less the ragtime of my grandparents.?

I grew up in the “olden days”. We sang the same Catholic hymns sung throughout the English speaking world. We sang the same Latin Catholic hymns etc. as were sung by our brothers and sisters throughout the world. There were no hymns, Mass settings, etc. which resembled the popular music of the era. This is a point which largely goes unnoticed.

What is it about the popular music of my generation and the generations which followed which makes it suitable, indeed preferred, for Mass? I grew up hearing the music of my parent’s generation. What makes the Beatles, Simon & Garfunkle, Mammas and Pappas, etc. more suitable than Benny Goodman or Tommy Dorsey. Oh, we can’t have a hymn which sounds like the Andrews Sisters…oh, no…Why? What is so expressly right by the a’strummin’ and a’grinnin’ school of worship (if I said Hootenany, how many of you would understand?) when we did not adopt the other music that most of us in my generation grew up with listening to?

I’ve said it before. One Sunday we went from "To Jesus Christ Our Sovereign King to “Shout to the Highest Mountain”,Someone please explain to me why that is to be preferred to Dorsey, Gershwin, Miller et al who were still very popular when I grew up BUT! made no attempt to write music for church.
 
I’m fine with either one, but I would definitely like to see more use of the TLM. I grew up with only the NO and didn’t know about the TLM until after college. I really love the TLM, especially when I want to attend a very spiritually contemplative and reverent mass. Not that you can’t be contemplative in an NO, but the TLM lends itself better with the focus in that regard. One of the wonderful things about it is that it helps you learn how to focus, to truly quiet your mind and really pray. It’s work, but so worthwhile. So, I just think it would be nice to see more masses offered like that.

For the NO part of the poll, I chose that the NO needs to be more reverent, butthat answer was the best of the three. Perhaps there should have been another choice saying that the NO mass could be improved in terms of consistancy. I’ve attended very reverent NO masses, but I’ve also attended many which were not reverent enough or filled with abuses. I would just like to see a consistancy with each mass wherever I go.

As others have said, I don’t think I’d want only NO or only TLM masses. I’m ok with having both.
 
Sarabande said:
I’m fine with either one, but I would definitely like to see more use of the TLM. I grew up with only the NO and didn’t know about the TLM until after college. I really love the TLM, especially when I want to attend a very spiritually contemplative and reverent mass. Not that you can’t be contemplative in an NO, but the TLM lends itself better with the focus in that regard. One of the wonderful things about it is that it helps you learn how to focus, to truly quiet your mind and really pray. It’s work, but so worthwhile. So, I just think it would be nice to see more masses offered like that.

For the NO part of the poll, I chose that the NO needs to be more reverent, butthat answer was the best of the three. **Perhaps there should have been another choice saying that the NO mass could be improved in terms of consistancy. **I’ve attended very reverent NO masses, but I’ve also attended many which were not reverent enough or filled with abuses. I would just like to see a consistancy with each mass wherever I go.

As others have said, I don’t think I’d want only NO or only TLM masses. I’m ok with having both.
Click to expand...
That would have been a good question too. There does seem to be that desire for consistancy, which I think is partly what is driving the interest in the TLM. You can go to a TLM anywhere and know what your getting.
Of course one always thinks of ways to do a poll after it’s already started.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
I chose 2 in the first because I go to 2 different parishes:

*N.O. = Satisfied. See no reason to change: *This is in reference to the parish I go to most. Much is said in Latin, uses Chant, said Ad Orientum, and communion on the tongue using intinction and the altar rail.

*N.O. = Needs changed. Not reverent enough: Most other parishes (including my “registered parish” I have visited.

For the second part:

*TLM = Never been to TLM and am not interested. The parish I go to has the EF both weekdays and Sunday. But due to the hatefulness of some of the more extreme “traditionalist” to the OF (i.e. it seems one thinks they are all “clown Masses”), I have been totally turned off to going to the EF.
 
WanderAimlessly said:
I chose 2 in the first because I go to 2 different parishes:

*N.O. = Satisfied. See no reason to change: *This is in reference to the parish I go to most. Much is said in Latin, uses Chant, said Ad Orientum, and communion on the tongue using intinction and the altar rail.

*N.O. = Needs changed. Not reverent enough: Most other parishes (including my “registered parish” I have visited.

For the second part:

*TLM = Never been to TLM and am not interested. The parish I go to has the EF both weekdays and Sunday. But due to the hatefulness of some of the more extreme “traditionalist” to the OF (i.e. it seems one thinks they are all “clown Masses”), I have been totally turned off to going to the EF.
Click to expand...
Thanks for participating in the poll. The results have been interesting so far.

I’m sorry that you have been turned off by of the TLM by the narrowmindedness of a few hotheads. Of course the OF also has it’s share of radicals as well as noted by your need to make multiple selections due to attending more than one parish.

I hope that you will someday find it in your heart to give the TLM a try, despite the radical few.

May God Bless

James
 
WanderAimlessly said:
For the second part:

*TLM = Never been to TLM and am not interested. The parish I go to has the EF both weekdays and Sunday. But due to the hatefulness of some of the more extreme “traditionalist” to the OF (i.e. it seems one thinks they are all “clown Masses”), I have been totally turned off to going to the EF.
Click to expand...
In all fairness, it has been my experience that the OF of Mass in most parishes is much, much closer to a “clown Mass” than it is to the way you describe Mass in your parish.

It is much easier to find a Tridentine Mass than it is to find an OF Mass that is at least licit - having no liturgical abuses, let alone one that is actually offered ad orientem and with Gregorian chant.

James
 
I grew up with the EF. My parish is reverent NO. However, after watching the All Saints Day liturgy on EWTN, that’s the way I’d like to go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top