Question about the Confiteor at mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter HolySpirit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
yes you did insinuate
I didn’t say that it was OKAY. I said it was made easier.
It dosn’t make it easier to do something wrong. Less rules make it easier for the average person to catch a priest doing something wrong.
Because the Novus Ordo is a ‘Mass of options.’ I don’t necessarily think that’s a good thing, because it can start a slippery slope.
There is NO slippery slope. It is not ok to do something wrong. It’s just harder to get caught. But should we really base our entire liturgy on the basis of what makes it easist for the laity to catch a priest doing something wrong?
 
Earlier you said 76 options or close to it. Now you say you’re exaggerating. Which is it?
 
No, I’m a cradle Catholic who was first OF then EF. I could be wrong about this though.

But doesn’t the Mass officially start when the priest ascends the steps to the altar and kiss it?
 
I’m sorry if my exaggerations bothered you. They were just that: exaggerations.
 
Not bothered, just pointing out an inconsistency in your argument.

If you’re intent is to persuade anyone in these online debates, you might want to leave out the exaggerations. They tend to discredit ones positoin rather than bolster it.
 
Last edited:
No one was trying to make the Mass “Protestant”; that is simply a lie which has been repeated for a number of decades by those who hated the changes. An honest research into the change of the Mass would clearly show that it has no similarities to Protestant worship - unless by that you mean high Lutheran and high Episcopalian, which largely resembled the Mass. Perhaps you need to go observe a Methodist, or a Presbyterian service, or any one of the other 30,000+ evangelical and fundamental church services.
 
Sorry, I’ve read Bugnini’s book, and he makes very clear that there was every intention on his part to make the Mass more acceptable to Protestants.
 
Page and quote, please. I am not willing to pay almost $140 for it today (Amazon). I suspect I can find it at the library at Mt. Angel, but have a class tonight.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I’ve read Bugnini’s book, and he makes very clear that there was every intention on his part to make the Mass more acceptable to Protestants.
Making it more acceptable to Protestants didn’t mean that we made it more like a Protestant service. Remember this was the 1950’s. The vast majority of protestants were “Catholic lite” and had services that resembled Mass qite closely.
 
I find it difficult to pray at the Novus Ordo mass, because there’s hardly any room for silence.
Nonsense. There are multiple appropriate places for silence in the OF Mass. It’s up to the celebrant to observe them. I attend an OF Mass at a monastery, in Gregorian chant, and there are long silences after each reading, after the homily, during the Offertory, and after communion. The celebrant gives the cue when the silence is over. If the celebrant wants to speed through Mass that is one thing, but speed Masses were not unheard of before the Council, with many an EF said in 20 minutes flat. The fastest OF I’ve ever been to was a weekday recited Mass and was 25 minutes.
That’s why I like the Latin Mass so much better than the Novus Ordo.
Those are not mutually exclusive terms. I’ve been to many Ordinary Form Masses in Latin.
 
Last edited:
There is more opportunities for silence in the TLM though.
 
For the last 20+ years, the priests we have had at our parish (one at at time) have had periods of silence. Not as long as the massive periods of effectively silent time when I was a kid, in the 50’s and early 60’s. But the OF is designed to have one pray along with the priest - not in silence of the priest, but with him silently.
 
You can add silence in many places in the OF: examen before the penitential rite, after each reading, after the homily, the offertory can licitly be done almost entirely in silence, there can be silence after communion, and those silences can be as long or as short as the celebrant wants. I can’t really see where the EF has significantly more opportunities for silence other than the Eucharistic prayer being silent. In any place in the EF that calls for silence, again, those silences can be as long, or as short, as the celebrant wants, and as noted there have been many many very fast EF Masses prior to the Council.
 
In my experience, there isn’t that much silence, but that’s just my experience.

I was speaking more specifically about how certain prayers in the EF are said in a low tone whereas in the OF, they’re said Ina loud tone.
 
There is more opportunities for silence in the TLM though.
from my understanding, there were many times in the 1950’s and prior that the TLM was extremely quick and perfunctory due to it’s rigid rules. Many Daily Masses had you in and out the door in 15 minutes and even Sunday Mass could be sub 45 minutes. There wasn’t much “time for silence”

Your experience of TLM is only that of priests and people who are seeking it out. The issues you have are entirely the divide between the common and what happens whenever something is more proliferated and the uncommon that is handled with kid gloves.

I think you’d have quite the different view if you took a time machine
 
I was talking more specifically certain mass parts which are said in a low tone in the EF as opposed to the OF, where they’re almost ALL said in the loud tone. I find the former more conducive to prayer.
 
Page and quote, please. I am not willing to pay almost $140 for it today (Amazon). I suspect I can find it at the library at Mt. Angel, but have a class tonight.
I am working at our abbey’s library tomorrow. I will try to look for a copy and see if I can find the quote. They likely have it in French but I can translate if I find it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top