Relatively few catholics prefer the TLM

  • Thread starter Thread starter TMGallyon85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there’s more than a little digging of heels into the ground here. Regardless of what the Vatican does, if we all won’t get along with each other and even consider the other side’s view, no directive of any kind from the Vatican will solve anything.

In my experience, the TLM tends TOWARD being more reverent; it’s been around for centuries and is more difficult to abuse it in a way that the laity will notice. The Novus Ordo, being both very young and very open, is very easy to abuse. In part, I think that’s a combination of radical priests/bishops and a laity that didn’t know the definite difference between an abuse and an acceptable change. The laity DID notice that the Novus Ordo was very different, and let’s face it, no group of human beings EVER likes a dramatic change in anything, be it the Mass or anything else.

Dang. I’d write more, but I need to get to class. You all take care and have a good day tomorrow.

John
 
Cathryn said:
My Pastor added a Mass to the Sunday schedule. We are a parish of about 500 families with one over worked priest, who also has a mission church to attend to. Our Bishop asked all his priests, who among them could say a traditional latin Mass. My pastor was the only one who said he could learn to do it. The Bishop wrote a letter to the diocese that, at this time, only one priest has volunteered. That seems to be my Pastor. Father says a low Mass with no music. It is beautiful. I believe my Pastor is doing it because he really wants to.
Click to expand...
Prior to the MP, the only parish that offered the TLM under the indult was a diocesan parish. Several priests ( Including my pastor) took the time to learn the EF and participated in the celebration of the EF at that parish.

What is also really cool is that two of our auxiliary bishops ( +Quinn and +Boyea) also took the time to learn to say the EF and also were the celebrants as often as their schedule allowed. +Boyea even learned the rubrics for the Pontifical Mass and has said that Mass. 👍

Now that the MP has removed the restrictions, our parish, and several others, have added an EF Mass, or will do so shortly (our parish is under renovations and our EF will start after the renovations are complete)
 
AlexV said:
I don’t object strongly to anything except your blatant provocative attempts to denigrate the traditional liturgy on a traditional forum. Period.

The POINT is simple: comments in non-juridical documents are not binding. So if you want to consider the Novus Ordo banal, you can. If you want to consider it not banal, you can.

“Normative” can mean lots of things. It can mean most common and nothing more. It has NO legal meaning.

But YOU changed it to mean PRIMARY…which is quite different indeed. And I called you on your error.

Now move along to a new topic…this is getting quite old.
Click to expand...
You have complained about each and every term I have used INCLUDING normative.

I find it hard to see a protest against this term, in the letter of instruction for the MP, when the pope specifically uses it.***
 
It’s called EXTRAORDINARY FORM and ORDINARY FORM OF THE ROMAN RITE.

Novus Ordo Missae and Missale Romanum 2002/1962 are also accurate.

NOW then…for my other point…how’s that 2002 Missal coming? Does your parish use it? What, no? You mean they use a 1985 translation of the 1975 Missale Romanum?

Oh, I guess your Mass isn’t “normative” then either…vernacular, hmm, that’s an indult…
 
James0235 said:
Wow.

I’m inclined to agree with Just 1 hr a wk on this one.

I know plenty of people who attend the New Mass who have little attachment to the material world. There are a lot of good and very faithful Catholics who attend (and prefer) the New Mass.

James
Click to expand...
Msgr. Klaus Gamber is one of the greatest liturgists in recent times. Cardinal Ratzinger said that Msgr. Klaus Gamber is “the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking of the center of the Church.”

CARDINAL RATZINGER’S PREFACE (to Reform of the Liturgy)
“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it–as in a manufacturing process–with a fabrication, a banal on- the-spot product.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

“The focus must forever be on God, not man. This has always meant that everyone turn towards Him in prayer, rather than that the priest face the people. From this insight, we must draw the necessary conclusion and admit that the celebration versus populum is, in fact, an error. In the final analysis, celebration versus populum is a turning towards man, and away from God.” (p. 179, The Reform of the Liturgy, Monsignor Klaus Gamber)

“In the end, we will all have to recognize that the new liturgical forms, well-intentioned as they may have been at the beginning, did not provide the people with bread, but with stones.” (p. 109)

“Real change in the contemporary perception of the purpose of the Mass and the Eucharist will occur only when the table altars are removed and Mass is again celebrated at the high altar; when the purpose of the Mass is again seen as an act of adoration and glorification of God and of offering thanks for His blessings, for our salvation and for the promise of the heavenly life to come, and as the mystical reenactment of the Lord’s sacrifice on the cross.” (p. 175)
 
fatima1917 said:
Msgr. Klaus Gamber is one of the greatest liturgists in recent times. Cardinal Ratzinger said that Msgr. Klaus Gamber is “the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking of the center of the Church.”

CARDINAL RATZINGER’S PREFACE (to Reform of the Liturgy)
“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it–as in a manufacturing process–with a fabrication, a banal on- the-spot product.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

“The focus must forever be on God, not man. This has always meant that everyone turn towards Him in prayer, rather than that the priest face the people. From this insight, we must draw the necessary conclusion and admit that the celebration versus populum is, in fact, an error. In the final analysis, celebration versus populum is a turning towards man, and away from God.” (p. 179, The Reform of the Liturgy, Monsignor Klaus Gamber)

“In the end, we will all have to recognize that the new liturgical forms, well-intentioned as they may have been at the beginning, did not provide the people with bread, but with stones.” (p. 109)

“Real change in the contemporary perception of the purpose of the Mass and the Eucharist will occur only when the table altars are removed and Mass is again celebrated at the high altar; when the purpose of the Mass is again seen as an act of adoration and glorification of God and of offering thanks for His blessings, for our salvation and for the promise of the heavenly life to come, and as the mystical reenactment of the Lord’s sacrifice on the cross.” (p. 175)
Click to expand...
All good stuff.
But, that does not mean that people who attend the NO are worshiping man instead of God.

James
 
AlexV said:
It’s called EXTRAORDINARY FORM and ORDINARY FORM OF THE ROMAN RITE.

Novus Ordo Missae and Missale Romanum 2002/1962 are also accurate.

NOW then…for my other point…how’s that 2002 Missal coming? Does your parish use it? What, no? You mean they use a 1985 translation of the 1975 Missale Romanum?

Oh, I guess your Mass isn’t “normative” then either…vernacular, hmm, that’s an indult…
Click to expand...
It would help if you would explain what you see as the difference between ‘extraordinary form’ and ‘ordinary form’ as well as what you think the pope meant when referring to one as the ‘normative’.
 
universalindult said:
Accurate observations; Why is this kind of baiting permitted on the “Traditional Catholicism” subforum?
Click to expand...
The baiting goes pretty heavy the other way too. Also, there is nothing in the rules that says this forum is only for the promotion of the TLM, but rather the discussion of it. I have noticed that traditionalists are just as likely to control the terminology, yet resent when this type of tactic is challenged. I remember early on I asked about the phrase “novus order” and was told the appropriate term was “ordo missae.” How many generations must pass before something is no longer considered new? Dating by the year would be one way to be accurate and focus on substance over rhetoric.

I for one would like to see an end to all the insults made be traditionalists toward the mainstream of Catholics whose only fault is not having an affection for the TLM. Like:

“In order to get something out of the TLM you must be spiritual. For those who are more attached to this matierial world then the next the New Mass is more to their liking. In the new mass you worship each other; in the TLM you worship God.”

It is not the TLM that gets people’s ire up. It is arrogance of a small minority of it’s attendees.
 
Satire has a long and venerable history in the Catholic Church.

I had a bishop once tell me that he wouldn’t allow a 1962 Mass because “Vatican II outlawed Latin”.

Those were his exact words.

How anyone could be consecrated to the episcopate and seriously believe that is indeed cause for wondering if we need a book like the one for which UniversalIndult offered a satirical cover.
 
The term “Novus Ordo Missae” isn’t pejorative in se (it certainly may be pejorative in re); but it isn’t a term traditionalists just made up. It’s stamped neatly in gold on red cloth on the cover of the separate publication of the Order of Mass (minus the rest of the Missal) that appeared in 1969 and was hastily reprinted in 1970 to correct certain…errors? Infelicities?

Fact as, Summorum Pontificum changes the game entirely.
  1. From 1970-1984, the 1962 Missal was treated as if banned, positively unseemly, a relic from the distant past (despite being c. 10-20 years old for that decade).
  2. From 1984-1988, the situation was slightly different thanks to Quatuor abhinc annos.
  3. From 1988-2007, the situation was quite different, thanks to Ecclesia Dei.
  4. Now we enter a new period. And for those who dislike SP in some way, note that you probably would never have seen it IF BISHOPS HAD BEEN GENEROUS ABOUT ED.
 
AlexV said:
The term “Novus Ordo Missae” isn’t pejorative in se (it certainly may be pejorative in re); but it isn’t a term traditionalists just made up. It’s stamped neatly in gold on red cloth on the cover of the separate publication of the Order of Mass (minus the rest of the Missal) that appeared in 1969 and was hastily reprinted in 1970 to correct certain…errors? Infelicities?

Fact as, Summorum Pontificum changes the game entirely.
  1. From 1970-1984, the 1962 Missal was treated as if banned, positively unseemly, a relic from the distant past (despite being c. 10-20 years old for that decade).
  2. From 1984-1988, the situation was slightly different thanks to Quatuor abhinc annos.
  3. From 1988-2007, the situation was quite different, thanks to Ecclesia Dei.
  4. Now we enter a new period. And for those who dislike SP in some way, note that you probably would never have seen it IF BISHOPS HAD BEEN GENEROUS ABOUT ED.
Click to expand...
I don’t see any problem with the terms Novus Ordo and TLM. Each can be meant to be pejorative or not. I think that Summorum Pontificum does make clear that NO is the Ordinary Form and that the TLM is the Extraordinary Form, so I have taken to using those terms. It will be interesting to see what terms are used in the promised “clarification” of the Summorum Pontificum. I’m guessing it will be OF and EF.

I agree that SP is a de facto change to the way the EF is handled. It may or may not have been a de jure change, but de facto is what effects real Catholic’s lives. Seems to me that when I was a kid (in the 70s) a Latin mass was available in my diocese because I remember some of my mother’s friends went to it. Not sure under what authority or whatever, or when and why it stopped, but that’s my recollection.

BTW, I am not convinced that the clarification of the SP will really change anything. I am also not really convinced that there is some mass disobedience to the SP now, although there appear to have been some instances. I’m guessing that most bishops are trying to implement it in a way that balances the needs of their parishoners with the limited pastoral resources they have.
 
pnewton said:
The baiting goes pretty heavy the other way too. Also, there is nothing in the rules that says this forum is only for the promotion of the TLM, but rather the discussion of it. I have noticed that traditionalists are just as likely to control the terminology, yet resent when this type of tactic is challenged. I remember early on I asked about the phrase “novus order” and was told the appropriate term was “ordo missae.” How many generations must pass before something is no longer considered new? Dating by the year would be one way to be accurate and focus on substance over rhetoric.

I for one would like to see an end to all the insults made be traditionalists toward the mainstream of Catholics whose only fault is not having an affection for the TLM. Like:

“In order to get something out of the TLM you must be spiritual. For those who are more attached to this matierial world then the next the New Mass is more to their liking. In the new mass you worship each other; in the TLM you worship God.”

It is not the TLM that gets people’s ire up. It is arrogance of a small minority of it’s attendees.
Click to expand...
Good post, you took the words out of my mouth!

I am new to this forum and relatively new to the internet, and if you had ever told me that I would find so many otherwise good, sincere, conservative Catholics so very critical of the mass, I wouldn’t have believed you!

A lot of us feel the same about the “new” mass as y’all do about the TLM. It’s traditional for us. It’s where I was baptized and grew up and still go to meet God every week.

I appreciate that some of you make it clear that although you prefer the TLM, you do respect the NO; just not the abuses/lack of reverence of particular masses you have attended. I totally get that. But some of the sarcasm and dismissiveness is really jarring. It, oh man I can’t believe I’m about to say this out loud…it sort of hurts my feelings. 😊 I love the mass, I think it’s the greatest gift of the Church.

(On the other hand, I think some defensiveness is totally understandable when you’re attacked by, for instance, provacative forum trolls w/ an anti-trad agenda…)
 
TMGallyon85 said:
A priest who is a resident at our parish wrote in a letter to our county paper claiming that the religion writer for our paper was right about the TLM being allowed more. He also stated correctly how that a local SSPX group was not in connection with Rome. But where I disagreed was where he cited some poll saying that more people preferred the pauline rite and that “relatively few” prferred to attend the TLM. The same priest has also claimed multiple times in our parish bulletin that few people understood latin so that is why they got rid of the TLM. 😦 Does it ever end? Maybe few people actually prefer it because many never experienced it.
Click to expand...
What I find ironic is that while the excuse about “relatively few” understanding Latin is justified when it comes to arguments about the TLM - how quick so many are (I won’t say priests or lay people) to encourage learning whatever language is spoken by the local immigrants - rather than encouraging them to learn English. What makes it so difficult to broaden our minds also for our Catholic Religion and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

The fact is this: Tridentine Latin Mass - not just “Traditional” is that Mass which was said in Latin in a particular way with particular rubrics (all much more respectfully than what resulted in the Novus Ordo). When translated to the vernacular it may have lost something in the translation. The most obvious and significant case being at the Consecrationi - “Pro Multis” (for many)…when translated to the vernacular now said “for all”.

It’s an old dispute - but if the concern was so great - then why tamper with the success of the ages? I never once heard anyone complain about not being able to understand the Latin. We attended Mass. Period. And Mass attendance was full. Churches (even with expenses) never looked run down or closed. So, why - after moving to the vernacular - did we lose more numbers in attendance? Novenas, nearly gone. Churches, convents and Catholic schools closing. Some could point a finger to the priest scandals that appeared in the news - but the aforementioned closings were already happening.

I simply can’t accept the comments about not learning a new language. It’s just an easy out to not return to the Tridentine Latin Mass. Have we become such a lazy society?
 
It’s possible to be devastatingly insulting under a false veneer of charity and politeness.

Next provocateur comment?
 
AlexV said:
Normative does NOT equal primary. You denigrate the liturgy by inaccurate terms. You are a provocateur who comes to a traditional forum and uses inaccurate terms to stir up trouble.

Like many enemies of this liturgy, you throw around words like “primary” “normative” and the like to denigrate and to demean a liturgy that you’re annoyed still exists.

Further, the Motu Proprio does NOT call any liturgy “normative”, which is a legal term. The cover letter is not a legal document. The Motu is. Ecclesiastical Law 101 would teach you that.
Click to expand...
It does in this case. The primacy of the Pauline Mass within the Latin Rite has been set by the Church. It is the ORDINARY rite of the Mass.

Before your carp about words like “primary” and “normative”, perhaps you should stop applying the demeaning label “Novus Ordo” to the Mass of Pope Paul IV? The Church never labeled the Pauline Mass as such, yet it’s used by many in the most debasing of manners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top