You said there are more “opportunities for silence”…this implies that TLM gives the priest more flexibility to be quiet. However, the opposite is the case. It’s actually the OF that gives the celebrant the option for speaking volume, tone and length of pauses/reflection. The TLM, really, only reflects the speed at which the “say/do” can be done.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.
Again, not really. In both cases, the priest’s use of silence and tone–even “proclaim” has a fair amount personal choice. The Novus Ordo Missel gives the priest more options for a quiet ton and prolonged scilence.Actually, the rubrics of the TLM instruct the priest to use a quite time more so than in the Novus Ordo.
For most of the prayers in the Novus Ordo, the priest has to has to pray them in a loud tone.
I’m getting what you are trying to express. You like your experience of TLM more than your experience of OF. Your experiance of TLM leads you to believe that it is more reverent, more holy, and just plainly better. However, this is a fallacy and not based on reality. What you experiance today as TLM is not indicitive to it’s practice when it was the norm and what you experiance in the OF is reflective of the culture and not it’s options.Okay, I’m done going back and forth on this. It’s getting nowhere and it doesn’t help anything.
No, it starts with the sign of the cross, at the foot of the altar.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 found the book on our library’s shelves, in English no less. Of course in the short time I had access to it (about an hour total) I did not get a sense from Abp. Bugnini that he was trying to make the Mass “more Protestant”. Quite the opposite in fact.Thank you, I will try to get up to Mt. Angel also
In the same chapter, another footnote states:Those in particular who were opposed to any reform of the Mass took advantage of the (Protestant) observer’s presence to claim that the reformed Mass was Protestant. One of their main arguments was that the Protestants had a hand in the revision. Further grist for their mill was a photograph taken at the end of the Consilium’s work for which the Holy Father, as a sign of fraternal good will, posed with the observers.
Then it goes on to explain the reasoning.On the other hand, there is no basis for the claim the third Eucharistic Prayer had been composed in collaboration with the Protestants.
and:What was the role of the observers at the Consilium? Simply to “observe”. Their attitude at the meetings of the Consilium was one of great reserve and unobtrusiveness"
So it rather seems that Abp Bugnini went to some lengths to show that he was not influenced by Protestants, even to the point where the chosen cycle of readings distanced the Liturgy from the Protestants. He goes on:Only on one occasion did the Concilium decide to ask the views of the observer’s group. This was during the discussion of the problem of cycles of readings in the celebration of the Eucharist. The question here was whether, having opted for a three-year cycle of readings, the Concilium should retain the one found in the Roman Missal or develop an entire new three-year cycle from scratch.
A group lead by Cardinal Be a chose the first solution. Their strong reason was an ecumenical one: the traditional order of readings was followed in many non-Catholic ecclesial communities, the Lutherans in particular. It seemed imprudent, therefore, to throw away the tie between the confessions…
Now I only had about an hour with the book. I may have missed spots where he said something about modifying the liturgy as a rapprochement with the Protestants. I rather think however, that the onus is on those making those claims to provide references from the book, because the ones I saw paint a rather different picture.This was the only intervention by the Fathers requested and the observers agreed to; it was marked by great courtesy, respect, and prudence.
That’s great!!!he makes very clear that there was every intention on his part to make the Mass more acceptable to Protestants.
That’s not from abp. Bugnini’s book. That’s an alleged quote from an article of March 19 1965 in L’Osservatore Romano, taken out of context. He was in fact talking about the 7th Good Friday petition. The translated quote is, in context:Libel? What a joke.
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.”
If anyone “libeled” Annibale Bugnini, it was Annibale Bugnini. The above quote from Bugnini is indefensible.
“The 7th prayer [of the new rite for Good Friday] bears the title: ‘For the Unity of Christians’ (not ‘of the Church’, which was always one.) No longer used is the pariah ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’ but ‘all brethren who believe in Christ…’
Scholars think to shed light on biblical and liturgical sources from which the new texts are derived or inspired, which the Study Groups of the “Council” accomplished by using a chisel. And let’s say that often the work proceeded ‘with fear and trembling’ by sacrificing terms and concepts so dear, and now part of the long family tradition. How not to regret that ‘Mother Church- Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - deigned to revoke’ the seventh prayer? And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices."