Reverent Novus Ordo Masses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter njmah16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Boler said:
I noticed this comment drew likes from @Xanthippe_Voorhees and @Walking_Home. Why is it valid to make the observation that the LifeTeen style of worship tends to be more reverent but not valid to make the same observation when it is of the TLM? Or that “many receive kneeling or on the tongue” is assessed as being more reverent, but not head coverings?

Or am I missing what the crux of the argument is here?
Click to expand...
Sort of.

I’m a strong advocate for properly done Lifeteen Masses. I’ve seen them convert the heart of more than one jaded and nearly despairing priest.

The problem with comparing the OF and the TLM in 2017 is that there are millions of OF masses every weekend where there are maybe a few dozen TLM masses.

When TLM was the norm, there were plenty of irreverent moments, disengaged people and outright abuses. However, it also occurred between the years 1600-1960 when people’s view of respect and reverence were far different than they are now.

Today, TLM is very rare and sought out. Only those who strongly desire to attend make the effort to go to such a Mass. To make a fair comparison to the OF Mass, one must find a similarly sought-out Mass that isn’t simply attended out of the sense of obligation.

The best example of this I’ve found outside of the Phillipino based CFC run churches is the Lifeteen Mass. The desire for the Mass itself is incredibly high. The teens (and adults) who attend seek out this Mass not simply for the ancillary things (like the music) but because they recognize the reverence and respond to it. They attend the program before or after in a desperate thirst to know more.

It’s the exact same sentiment of the TLM population.

So what @(name removed by moderator) is describing, or what I describe, or what @Walking_Home talks about is how when people try and declare that reverence is the deciding factor between TLM and OF they are operating with the inherent misunderstanding of the OF as viewed through the lens of the common experiance, rather than for what it really is—an amazing and invigorating Mass that has been given to us through the Church in her wisdom.
 
Last edited:
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
In the Southwest, people dress like they are going to the beach–short shorts,
Click to expand...
You’re going to call me out on using the word bikini? Really?

First off I never said a female who does not cover her head is less reverent, holy or pious. See post number 114. Never. In fact when I looked at the few women who were at Mass this past Sunday (see post 132) it never even occurred to me that they might be less than the women who chose to cover. Never. My concern is the steady decline in Catholics believing Catholic dogma. I listened to a sermon where the priest rattled off comparison poll numbers from the 70’s, 80’s and 2000’s. The polls did not split out the findings by OF only or EF only Catholics (though I would certainly be curious…wouldn’t you?) They were simply polling Catholics. The findings are pretty scary…a continual downward spiral of believing Catholics. Do you think there is something wrong? Are you concerned about your Catholic brothers and sisters? If you are concerned, can you offer an educated guess as to why there is a steady decline in belief in dogma? Maybe instead of jumping all over traditional-leaning Catholics and their Church approved right to practice “minor disciplines”, you could add some of your insight to a growing problem. Perhaps reading Boler’s comment 146 would help.

My apologies. I did not see you had answered Boler. And I would agree that there are reverent OF Masses. I’ve attended them. But, there are few of them, at least that is the case in my area. I have to drive 1/2 hour passing up at least 6-8 other parishes for either a reverent OF or EF Mass. Edited to add last paragraph.
 
Last edited:
I think belief in the Real Presence has dropped as our society has undergone a radical change over the past few decades. The change toward irreverence, unbelief, relativism, and believing in the “god of Self” has affected all of Christianity and religion in general, not just Catholicism. All of this has led to a decline in the belief of the Real Presence. I don’t think the change with veiling is a major cause. The sexual revolution is a major cause in my opinion, it’s caused our society to devolve.
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
I think belief in the Real Presence has dropped as our society has undergone a radical change over the past few decades. The change toward irreverence, unbelief, relativism, and believing in the “god of Self” has affected all of Christianity and religion in general, not just Catholicism. All of this has led to a decline in the belief of the Real Presence. I don’t think the change with veiling is a major cause. The sexual revolution is a major cause in my opinion, it’s caused our society to devolve.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. And I never said I believed veiling was a major cause. My contention is that veiling could help. It could cause some under catechized Catholic to ask why and start a conversation. And I really dislike it when some people seem to assume that many women who do veil are doing so to appear more pious. I struggled a lot with finally starting to veil in public just for that reason. And I’ve visited other forums where women complained of the same thing. They wanted to badly, but were fearful they would be judged. Their fears are not unwarranted.
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
I don’t think the change with veiling is a major cause. The sexual revolution is a major cause in my opinion, it’s caused our society to devolve.
Click to expand...
You’re right. The disappearance of “veiling” isn’t a major cause. But if you consider the loss of “veiling” with the loss of many other “little t traditions”, then you are on to something. For instance, a few examples of “little t traditions” taken for granted 50 years ago like “veiling”, kneeling to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, the reservation of the handling of the Sacred Species to the sacerdotal order, and the central location of the tabernacle, are now rarities in the modern Church. The “little t traditions” are what puts the “meat on the bones” of what we profess to believe. They are the tangible things that remind us sensibly what our doctrine teaches us intellectually. We know that Christ is truly Present in the Most Blessed Sacrament, so we act accordingly. Sadly, this isn’t true anymore. Many have adopted an attitude that “little t traditions” are just that - small disciplines, vestiges of a time gone by with no consequences for modern man. Yet, we see what has happened when they are taken away. The sensible, living indicators of what we believe are removed. Faith in the Real Presence declines. Collectively, these little traditions were so important to Catholic identity. They helped form Catholics and act as bridges between what we see and what we know intellectually from our catechism. Today, many of these little traditions are gone. Our catechism still tells us that Christ is truly Present in the Blessed Sacrament, but we have less sensible indicators of this. Sure, we can attribute the effects of the sexual revolution on why women decided to discard their veils. Sadly, instead of doubling down and encouraging women to continue to wear their veils to be a sign of contradiction to the promiscuous culture, the post-Conciliar Church, citing the “spirit of the Second Vatican Council”, decided to allow the effects of the sexual revolution to bring an end to a venerable tradition.
 
Last edited:
I agree, I’m sure the loss of all of the small “t” traditions, when taken together, can have a bigger impact.

Also, being a catechist, the thought occurred to me that the sharp decline in the “domestic church” has likely affected belief as well. So many families, maybe even most these days, don’t have anything to do with exposing their family/children to the faith outside of Sunday mass, if they even go.
 
What definition do you use for reverence?
The best definition I have of reverence in the Catholic Church, in the celebration of the Mass is to be able to recognise and respond to the Divine Presence.
Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in four ways. This has been taught to us by Popes Pius X, X1, X11 and we are reminded by Vatican 11 works in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
No distinction is made between type of Mass.
Are you questioning that Christ is present in the Eucharist less than 4 ways in this Mass?
 
Last edited:
The problem I see is people thinking that the Church operates in a vacuum. In the fifties men wore suits to baseball games and women wore dresses everywhere. Women put whatever they could find on their heads for mass if they didn’t have a proper hat. Chapel veils came in little cases you could carry in your purse. Did pulling that out and sticking it on your head make people holier then? I don’t think so.
Then along came the sixties and seventies and the whole world seemed turned upside down not just the Church. Society is different. There is less reverence and respect everywhere. Something on women’s heads in church will not change society.
 
People aren’t saying that ‘sticking things on women’s heads will change society’ so you’re arguing a strawman.

People ARE saying, "You know what, society has changed. Well, maybe it would be prudent to explore those changes and, when they went ‘wrong’, to make them right. And some ways of making them ‘right’ might involve an examination and possibly exploration of some old ‘practices’ and seeing if a greater engagement in those practices might help positively change society.

For crying out loud, it’s simple psychology of the behavioral type. If you’re feeling ‘down’, you try to find something positive, do something as simple as smile, sit up a bit straighter, light a candle, ‘find your happy’ place. . .and hey, your attitude starts to ‘adjust’.

WHY NOT explore ways our ancestors and forebears might have utilized these techniques and which helped THEM and could help us?

Why dismiss things out of hand as if “well, they didn’t ‘stop’ the slide then so they won’t have any effect now” without even trying?
 
People aren’t arguing it I am. I was no more reverent wearing a chapel veil than not. I never said that if you want to wear a head covering you can’t and neither does the church. I don’t and have yet to hear any argument that will convince me to do it again. Things were vastly different in the fifties.
 
I never said you HAD to wear it. It’s interesting though that apparently it was so traumatizing you would ‘never wear a covering again’. I wonder why something so ‘minor’ seems to engender such deep-seated hostility among some people (I am not saying YOU are hostile).
 
Well you see I read your statements below:
I never said that if you want to wear a head covering you can’t and neither does the church. I don’t and have yet to hear any argument that will convince me to do it again. Things were vastly different in the fifties.
Click to expand...
So you said, "I don’t (and the object of that phrase can only be ;wear a head covering’)and, “I have yet to hear any argument that will convince me to do it again” (the word it, again, can only refer to wearing a head covering). So it did seem that you were saying you do not and will not wear a covering to church. . .in your own words.
 
I have not found any, I have been in the Church 3year and the Latin Mass is great, but hard to find.
 
Right. However, it does not mean that a given X which correlates has ‘no’ effect.

There were many factors that contributed to a breakdown in society across the boards which became most noted in the 1960s and continues today.

In fact, it might be good to start with the so-called ‘little things’ as opposed to trying to tackle the ‘big issues’. So a ‘little issue’ like a minor practice of headcovering for women, of deep genuflections and a greater awareness of having your ‘outside’ look more respectful to reflect your INSIDE respect for men, women, and children might be a good way to start generating back some sense of reverence for God without trying to ‘yank people to the 1950s’ or institute repressive laws (snort) which are apparently feared, or ‘losing gains’ or whatever. What harm does it do to try something so ‘minor’?

As things stand, we need to make some change, inward or outward, as the ‘laissez-faire’ approach, or even more "welcoming gestures’ and ‘meeting people where they are’ is not working. We need to do something different because what we’ve been doing so far hasn’t exactly been succeeding for the last 50 years plus.
 
I’m sorry if I’m reiterating a question, but what is the definition of “reverent” here? As in, why do you mean when you say “more reverent” or “very reverent”? And how is that the (or these specific) Vernacular Masses do not show reverence, but the (or these specific) Latin Masses do? What is meant by “irreverent celebration”?
 
boclucky14 said:
I’m sorry if I’m reiterating a question, but what is the definition of “reverent” here? As in, why do you mean when you say “more reverent” or “very reverent”? And how is that the (or these specific) Vernacular Masses do not show reverence, but the (or these specific) Latin Masses do? What is meant by “irreverent celebration”?
Click to expand...
Good questions. It seems those who are saying that to mean in a subjective way - more of how they feel tiwards certain ways about the mass that they like.

Reverence, first of all is in the heart. Even if we say mass in the desert with the barely minimum, it still can be reverent because it is still a valid mass, and that matters.

Some people do not say it properly and due to their enthusiasm about the form of mass that they prefer, can sound ‘holier than thou’ and may project such attitude, which the grace of the mass does not give. It gives holiness, and it is expressed in charity and love.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top