San Diego Tridentine Mass

[palmas85]

Dear Palmas,

My goodness, it really seems to be a fabrication to print this extraordinary bit of information. I have observed the posts and threads on this forum for a couple of years, and rarely, if ever found anyone “hating” the traditional mass. Maybe you could give links to these? Perhaps you are using a hyperbole for “abandoning it” in preference for the Pauline Mass.

Any Catholic who loves the Lord, loves His liturgies, no matter what form they take. It is His holy sacrifice and His ineffable gift to us in the sacrament received there.

What you may find, alternatively, is an entire forum of people who seemingly “hate” the N.O. mass and bash it every chance they get, endlessly proselytising and verbally insulting those who do not share their views. Ask me how many times I have been given the royal insolent treatment for expressing my love for it. Yet you do not see me “hating” the TLM or those who have a preference for it.

As for never having been to a TLM? Nonsense. I was raised with it, and lived through all the changes in my adult years, not as a child like some. I was able to evaluate [as an adult] and appreciate the changes because explanations were given continuously from the pulpit to educate us. Many who did not live in that time were not as blessed to know the background, and IMO, have little or no incentive to self-educate. Their only recourse, unfortunately, is the nonsense promulgated by traditionist websites, without a shred of truth in some of them.

Sunday’s psalm response at our english mass, which TLM-ers unfortunately are never exposed to, said it well:

R. Blessed are they who dwell in your house, O Lord.
How lovely is your dwelling place, O LORD of hosts!
My soul yearns and pines for the courts of the LORD.
My heart and my flesh cry out for the living God.
R. Blessed are they who dwell in your house, O Lord.
Happy they who dwell in your house!
Continually they praise you.

Would that this could be said of both the TLM and the NO, for both are the Lord’s.

I once read a post on here, this very forum where the Priest and Altar Boys at a Traditional Mass were referred to as, and I quote "MINDLESS MIMES SHUFFLING AROUND THE ALTAR I have read claims again on this forum that prior to Vatican II and its renewal of the faith NO ONE KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON AT THE ALTAR.

If those two examples don’t show hatred for the Traditional Mass then could you tell me exactly what they do show? If I was so inclined I could search a few threads and post several hundred examples of this sort of bigoted and hateful quotes. Maybe i will since apparently I may have just imagined them

I’m glad that all the changes were explained to you. I too went through the change as a young adult. Nothing was explained to us except this is the New and improved modern Church and we had to adapt. Thats really about it.

Yep we were never exposed to Psalms in the Traditional Mass. No psalms at all ever, they didn’t exist. Or did they? Oh I get it the verbal response thing:thumbsup: full and active participation, whew had me scared there for a second. I thought maybe I had just imagined the psalms contained in the Traditional Mass as well as everything else.

Oh by the way, I never said YOU hated it. It is interesting that you seem to assume that somehow I did. Wonder why that is?? I specifically aimed it at those who DO hate the Traditional Mass and more to the point the ones who hate it but have never been to one. Why would you think I included youin thatgroup? Interesting.

It is far from a fabrication to point out the truth my friend.

 

[AlexV]

Actually, a traditional Mass Introit is almost always from the Psalms, as is the Gradual, Offertory, and Communion.

Most of the whole tradition of those propers has been utterly abandoned by the typical Novus Ordo celebration, which is, in effect, a Low Mass with hymns tacked on, rather than the experience of a sung liturgy.

As for “self-education”, I am well aware of the details of the history of the liturgical reform. “Living” through it as an adult does not impart any special wisdom here. If you want to make an objective study of the “what” and the “why” of liturgical “reform”, start with Annibale Bugnini’s copiously annotated book.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Palmas,

I once read a post on here, this very forum where the Priest and Altar Boys at a Traditional Mass were referred to as, and I quote [1.] "MINDLESS MIMES SHUFFLING AROUND THE ALTAR I have read claims again on this forum that prior to Vatican II and its renewal of the faith [2.] NO ONE KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON AT THE ALTAR.

If those two examples don’t show hatred for the Traditional Mass then could you tell me exactly what they do show?

Regarding example 1, a forum search showed no such wording, unless it was in a post that did not survive the crash. That’s only one post, is it not? Since I don’t read every single thread, it is likely you are more familiar. Those I did chance to read showed no outright hatred.

Example 2 does not indicate hatred at all, only ignorance of what took place. I have to put myself in that pair of shoes as well, even though I went to Catholic school. We were silent observers of a priest/server liturgy with little ability to stay focused, unless one used the missal.

While it would be interesting to have you look up and post the statements that suggest your word hatred, I don’t think it does any good to air the dirty laundry again — on either side!
Marian Carroll posted a poignant message that addresses this futile action:

While we all vent occasionally, trying to fill the forum with a long series of lamentations, thread after thread or declarations about what is wrong in each and every place one goes, does not lend itself to creating a atmosphere where others care to come and join in the conversation.

Responding to your wonderment as to why I felt included in the group of haters, let’s look at your words: A lot of the negative things you hear about the Traditional Mass are myths, promoted by people who hate it.

I have said things that could be construed as negative, because they are true valuations formed as my personal viewpoint from experience, and these are not myths. Nor should it be assumed by a reader that I hate the liturgy if I express a negative point, nor should “TLM-hatred” be assumed about any other person unless they specifically state this. I simply doubt they did, and hinted that you may be painting with too broad a brush, and inflaming further controversy.

Both groups need to forgive and accept one another, as I mentioned previously. It would be well to consider the Pope’s peace message yesterday and start a fresh year without any mudslinging toward a fellow Catholic who believes differently.

 

[Joysong]

AlexV:

Actually, a traditional Mass Introit is almost always from the Psalms, as is the Gradual, Offertory, and Communion.

Agreed, but it was always in latin, and was usually a very brief one-liner or so. There was never a flow of psalmody that one could learn and memorize through repetition. While it is a nominal good in the TLM, it is par excellance in the N.O., for most of the psalm is prayed in sequence.

Regarding your last paragraph, Alex, you carry a bitterness that is not conducive to peace and good will.

 

[AlexV]

I don’t “carry bitterness” (talk about judgmental). I make observations based on reality.

The entire Tridentine Mass is loaded with psalmody, starting from Psalm 42 at the foot of the altar. The proper parts of the Tridentine Mass contain more than “a very brief one-liner” from psalmody.

I doubt many Catholics at the NO - or the Tridentine - are memorizing psalms. Highly unlikely. If some are (probably because they pray the Office, old or new)…wonderful. But let’s not imagine the average Mass attendee is memorizing psalms because of a “responsorial psalm” at Mass.

Participating in the Tridentine Mass takes work, and relatively few expended it before the Council. The Novus Ordo also requires work (though far less), especially if you want a better experience of liturgy than listening and replying to the ongoing parade of talking heads that constitutes much NO liturgy.

As for “charismatic” Masses…no such thing exists in the Roman Rite.

 

[Joysong]

The entire Tridentine Mass is loaded with psalmody, starting from Psalm 42 at the foot of the altar. The proper parts of the Tridentine Mass contain more than “a very brief one-liner” from psalmody.

And? Again, it is still in latin, and done with priest and server, not the people. The value is not as excellent as it is in the NO in my opinion because it is unrecognizable and without personal response. It is also a fact that the psalms are very limited and not as expanded as they are in the N.O. In this liturgy they usually have a “response” to the first reading and enhance one’s appreciation for the Word.
You are free to believe as you do, but allow me the same privilege in return.

I doubt many Catholics at the NO - or the Tridentine - are memorizing psalms. Highly unlikely. If some are (probably because they pray the Office, old or new)…wonderful. But let’s not imagine the average Mass attendee is memorizing psalms because of a “responsorial psalm” at Mass.

Maybe the word “many” is accurate, but that some are not absorbing and learning the psalms is not a reasonable conclusion, especially over 40 years of hearing them — particularly those that are sung by the cantor. I find myself singing the verses quite often at home. Our choir takes about a 45-minute rehearsal to do learn them in harmony, so these folks are also learning them. Quite lovely, more so than hearing the priest mumble them in latin with the server.

Why the remark about charismatic masses?

 

[AlexV]

Latin is not an obstacle to the faithful understanding or appreciating or absorbing a liturgical text. That’s why there are Missals, catechesis, etc., etc. Sacred languages are not obstacles to such things.

Neither is rote recitation. Just because the priest and the ministers were the ones audibly reciting did not mean the faithful were not able to participate as well. You have made the common error of equating audible responses with “participation”. I was at a Novus Ordo on Sunday. Many people were silent and making no responses, no singing, no anything. And this was an English Mass. There WAS, however, a mega-amplified cantor, complete with hand gestures and powerful microphone. I’ll take the server and priest, thank you.

As for biblical knowledge over 40 years, there’s something to be said for the Tridentine Mass with its less “rich” lectionary. You could actually get a handle on the 50-odd pericopes you heard in one year. With the patristic homilies on the gospels in the Office, and good preaching, the repetition of the texts of Epistle and Gospel and occasional Lesson could realistically be absorbed over time.

Ask the average Mass goer today what all three Sunday readings were about. I wouldn’t be surprised if - as ever - a minority of liturgically aware people could tell you everything there is to know, and the vast majority couldn’t recall a single text from their ENGLISH Mass.

But thanks for showing your true colors with your crack about the priest and server “mumbling” at the Tridentine Mass. I heard quite a bit of mumbling from the priest and lector on Sunday. Those types of abuses are endemic to most American Catholic liturgies, old or new.

 

[Joysong]

But thanks for showing your true colors with your crack about the priest and server “mumbling” at the Tridentine Mass. I heard quite a bit of mumbling from the priest and lector on Sunday. Those types of abuses are endemic to most American Catholic liturgies, old or new.

Crack? I assumed we were having an adult conversation. You still claim you are not bitter? One would never guess. As I asked, Alex, let’s just respect one another’s appreciation and agree to disagree. That’s the human lot of all of us - different strokes for different folks.

 

[francesco920]

Joysong,

The reason many Catholics who love the TLM feel that their rite is hated is because it has been widely supressed by heterodox bishops. Furthermore, if nobody hated the TLM, why is it that there are groups lobying against the Pope’s upcoming motu proprio regarding the TLM? Take for example the liberal Italian cleric Fr. Paolo Farinella who is trying (but not succeeding) to gather 10,000 signatures for his petition against the TLM.

I assume you would be in favor of the Pope’s upcoming universal indult allowing priests to say the TLM freely?

 

[mikeanayaus]

See, I told you:thumbsup: A lot of the negative things you hear about the Traditional Mass are myths, promoted by people who hate it. Pure and simple. I once posted a list of the complaints that Martin Luther, the great seeker of truth as well as other early Protestant reformers had about the Mass, You know what, word for word they are exactly the same as those that many today have. No difference. I will go a step further. If you press many of these Traditional Mass haters, they will admit that they have never been to one, but have been told about them or heard about them or saw one on You Tube or some such nonsense.

I stopped paying attention to the posts about the clacking of rosary beads, muttered prayers in a dead language and 8 minute, no 6 minute no make that a 3 minute Tridentine Mass and no body knowing what was going on when I realized it was mostly propaganda and part of a bigger plan that has been around since the 1500’s.

I can’t really see why people object to it being in Latin, if you follow along in the missal there shouldn’t be a problem (I usually read the readings in the novus ordo missals anyway). An 8 minute mass is obviously an exaggeration but if that’s referring to the masses like that one on Youtube, I probably would prefer the novus ordo too (whether in English or Latin). Either way, It’s pretty sad to see the kind of arguing that goes on about the novus ordo and Tridentine masses, I personally do like both. Now I just prefer the old one because it’s just more awe-inspiring than how the new one is often celebrated.

P.S.
Does anybody know where I can find an indult mass near Salem, OR?

 

[Joysong]

Francesco:

The reason many Catholics who love the TLM feel that their rite is hated is because it has been widely supressed by heterodox bishops. Furthermore, if nobody hated the TLM, why is it that there are groups lobying against the Pope’s upcoming motu proprio regarding the TLM? Take for example the liberal Italian cleric Fr. Paolo Farinella who is trying (but not succeeding) to gather 10,000 signatures for his petition against the TLM.

I can’t answer that since I don’t know their reasons … this is the first I heard of it. It doesn’t necessarily mean these lobbyists “hate” the Mass, contrary to some people’s thinking, for I don’t know their true motive. Some may not feel that a fractured Church is good for everyone, or some other purpose that is not being made public. Some in your ranks have given the TLM worshippers a bad name by their public antagonism to the N.O. Unfortunate, for they do not realize the extent of their actions on those who are sincere and simply want to worship as they are called and feel comfortable.

I assume you would be in favor of the Pope’s upcoming universal indult allowing priests to say the TLM freely?

Yes, I do support it, providing there are sufficient priests who are capable of celebrating the mass, and enough people to warrant a separate liturgy. As I tried to determine this in a demographic that I posted on another thread, there are presently very few in any one parish who are interested. It may need to be celebrated at a separate mass time on weekdays or occasional Sundays in any given month, as a service to those who desire this form of worship.

In checking the statistics in the Archdiocese of Detroit, I noted that the expectation for clergy in the near future is very slim, since the majority are elderly and are not being replaced. This may also come into play, for a priest is limited to how many liturgies he can celebrate in any one day, and the majority may still want the N.O.

 

[AlexV]

A common game in some locales (neatly verified to me not once but twice by a bishop I used to have occasional meals with who was quite anti-Tridentine) is to

1. schedule the Mass in an inconvenient location, at an inconvenient time;
2. note after a few months/1 year that attendance is low and therefore nobody really wants it.

And, as for “hatred”, another bishop once smiled at me in his office and said quite plainly that there would be a Tridentine Mass over his “dead body” and that “we killed it, we killed it”.

But Joysong’s mention of a “fractured church” shows another common error among many Catholics, lay and cleric. Somehow if we don’t all worship in lock step, the church will be fractured. Huh? There has always been multiformity of liturgical rites and usages.

And, further, what I called a “crack” in her pre’cis about the Tridentine Mass was indeed that. She mentioned priests “mumbling” during Mass with their servers, and then lectures us on charity and bitterness.

False charity indeed. The fox always shows its true colors.

 

[palmas85]

Dear Palmas,

Regarding example 1, a forum search showed no such wording, unless it was in a post that did not survive the crash. That’s only one post, is it not? Since I don’t read every single thread, it is likely you are more familiar. Those I did chance to read showed no outright hatred.

Example 2 does not indicate hatred at all, only ignorance of what took place. I have to put myself in that pair of shoes as well, even though I went to Catholic school. We were silent observers of a priest/server liturgy with little ability to stay focused, unless one used the missal.

While it would be interesting to have you look up and post the statements that suggest your word hatred, I don’t think it does any good to air the dirty laundry again — on either side!
Marian Carroll posted a poignant message that addresses this futile action:

Responding to your wonderment as to why I felt included in the group of haters, let’s look at your words: A lot of the negative things you hear about the Traditional Mass are myths, promoted by people who hate it.

I have said things that could be construed as negative, because they are true valuations formed as my personal viewpoint from experience, and these are not myths. Nor should it be assumed by a reader that I hate the liturgy if I express a negative point, nor should “TLM-hatred” be assumed about any other person unless they specifically state this. I simply doubt they did, and hinted that you may be painting with too broad a brush, and inflaming further controversy.

Both groups need to forgive and accept one another, as I mentioned previously. It would be well to consider the Pope’s peace message yesterday and start a fresh year without any mudslinging toward a fellow Catholic who believes differently.

I gave several, two, examples of hundreds of responses I’ve read. The one about the mindless mimes stays in my mind mainly because of the bitterness of the attack. But in fairness, what I’ll do, is every time in the future some such comment pops up, and I’m sure they will, they always do:thumbsup: , I will make sure to pm it straight to you. Hows that for being fair and balanced?

 

[Joysong]

Poor Alex,

I wish I did not need to disappoint you again, for you were having so much fun with your put-downs, but the truth is that in the prayers at the foot of the altar, the priest and server speak so softly that it could be said they mumble. They did not wear a microphone nor speak with projection for all to hear. That was not the form of the liturgy that I grew up with. Maybe I could find a more suitable adjective that would prevent you from exercising such rash judgment: mutter? whisper? No matter, it still comes across as mumbling to those in the pews. Enjoy!

 

[AlexV]

“Mumble” has negative connotations…and you know it.

Amplification is neither required nor desirable in many liturgical settings. A priest should 1) know how to project his voice without amplification and, 2), amazingly, not every word of the liturgy is required to be audible to the congregation. Some parts of even the Novus Ordo are said sotto voce.

As for “rash judgment”, you’ve been the one on this thread exercising that, with your accusations of “bitterness”, “put downs”, “mumbling”…like many, you argue that you’re all for letting different people worship in different ways, but you’re incapable of stating your liberality without 1) criticizing the Tridentine liturgy and 2) noting that, after all, not that many people really want it anyway.

 

[netmilsmom]

“Mumble” has negative connotations…and you know it.

Amplification is neither required nor desirable in many liturgical settings. A priest should 1) know how to project his voice without amplification and, 2), amazingly, not every word of the liturgy is required to be audible to the congregation. Some parts of even the Novus Ordo are said sotto voce.

As for “rash judgment”, you’ve been the one on this thread exercising that, with your accusations of “bitterness”, “put downs”, “mumbling”…like many, you argue that you’re all for letting different people worship in different ways, but you’re incapable of stating your liberality without 1) criticizing the Tridentine liturgy and 2) noting that, after all, not that many people really want it anyway.

Thank you Alex.

 

[mystified]

Eight minute Mass?
Our chaplain in the Army sometimes did the Traditional Mass in about 12 minutes, leaving nothing out. Sort of “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition”.

 

[Joysong]

“Mumble” has negative connotations…and you know it.

Projection, transference. Depends upon the charity in the mind of the reader. Some would have read it as I meant it.

Think back on the post in question, Alex, where you defended the lack of psalmody in the TLM by stating that psalm 42 was used at the foot of the altar. This prompted my response suggesting that it is not advantageous whatsoever because it is “unrecognizable.” Alluding to the same subject matter, I changed the word to mumbling at the end. How is that uncharitable, when it is truth?

I believe you stated the very same thing: I heard quite a bit of mumbling from the priest and lector on Sunday. Those types of abuses are endemic to most American Catholic liturgies, old or new. At least I had the courtesy not to call it an abuse. The pot can call the kettle black?

And? Again, it is still in latin, and done with priest and server, not the people. The value is not as excellent as it is in the NO in my opinion because it is unrecognizable.

The entire Tridentine Mass is loaded with psalmody, starting from Psalm 42 at the foot of the altar. The proper parts of the Tridentine Mass contain more than “a very brief one-liner” from psalmody.

Back to topic, please. http://bestsmileys.com/sleeping/6.gif

 

[Walking_Home]

“Mumble” has negative connotations…and you know it.

Amplification is neither required nor desirable in many liturgical settings. A priest should 1) know how to project his voice without amplification and, 2), amazingly, not every word of the liturgy is required to be audible to the congregation. Some parts of even the Novus Ordo are said sotto voce.

As for “rash judgment”, you’ve been the one on this thread exercising that, with your accusations of “bitterness”, “put downs”, “mumbling”…like many, you argue that you’re all for letting different people worship in different ways, but you’re incapable of stating your liberality without 1) criticizing the Tridentine liturgy and 2) noting that, after all, not that many people really want it anyway.

---

Well said.—

 

[AlexV]

If a liturgy begins with Psalm 42, and everyone in the Roman Rite knows it begins with Psalm 42, does it matter if the psalm is sung by a microphoned cantor or recited quietly by a priest and server while the Introit is being chanted?

Not really. “Unrecognizable?” Are things only recognizable if they are recited into a microphone in your native language?

As for mumbling…you made a blanket statement about the liturgical practice of the Tridentine Mass, in contrast to the modern vernacular Mass. I pointed out, correctly, that just because someone is using English and a microphone doesn’t mean you won’t hear mumbling.

You made a prejudicial comment about the Tridentine Mass, and I called you on it. And you made an inaccurate remark about something being “unrecognizable” just because it’s not in English, not audible…even though it’s the same psalm, every day. This started because of your other humdinger about the Tridentine Mass and psalmody. I corrected you, noting that every Tridentine Mass started with a complete psalm (except those rare occasions where Psalm 42 was abbreviated according to the rubrics).

In other words, you made it clear that the very nature of the Tridentine use of Latin and inaudible prayers is = to mumbling and isn’t “advantageous” to the faithful (see further below). That’s an insult to the liturgy. I commented not on the nature of the Novus Ordo but the fact that EVEN with the vernacular and audible, indeed amplified sound, you can have people “mumble.”

But now you’ve gone a step further and made the truly outrageous statement that the Tridentine psalmody wasn’t “advantageous whatsoever” because it was in Latin and wasn’t always audible (it was in Low Mass).

That’s the Protestant heresy that everything must be vernacular and audible to be efficacious, advantageous, or otherwise appropriate for liturgy.