- Status
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Duesenberg:
Sure it was. This is a historically verifiable fact. One of the principle goals of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium was to ensure that the New Order of Mass would not antagonize the Protestants - err, I’m sorry “our Separated Brethren” (to use the words of the Council). This isn’t conspiratorial nonsense. All this info is out there in plain sight.
Here are the names of the Protestants who worked closely with Archbishop Bugnini and his Consilium to create the New Order of Mass:
Archbishop Bugnini himself said in 1965:
- A. Raymond George (Methodist)
- Ronald Jaspar (Anglican)
- Massey Shepherd (Episcopalian)
- Friedrich Künneth (Lutheran)
- Eugene Brand (Lutheran)[5]
- Max Thurian (Calvinist-community of Taize).
“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…”
You’re right. But again, you’re not looking at the OP’s intention. The modern Anglican service and the New Order of Mass are almost identical in their outward trappings.
True. However, in my opinion, to favor the Ordinariate Mass over the Traditional Mass of the Roman Rite because it can be “understood without a missal” instead of taking the time and effort to familiarize oneself with the Traditional Roman Rite is a shallow reason for betraying one’s own patrimony.
You post that – after this.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
You conveniently removed the last sentence of my post…
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Last edited:
D
Duesenberg
Guest
A Missa Cantata which is not a high EF Mass can also employ GC.
V
Vico
Guest
The Latin language Missale Romanum editio typica, since the Council of Trent:
- 1570 Pope Pius V
- 1604 Pope Clement VII
- 1634 Pope Urban VII
- 1884 Pope Leo XIII
- 1920 Pope Benedict XV
- 1962 Pope John XXIII
- 1470-1570: 14 printed editions with variations Milan, Venice, Paris and Lyon
M
malphono
Guest
Somehow this thread seems like déjà vu. 
J
JoyToTheWhirled
Guest
Wowsers, this really is a topic that gives and gives!
From my perspective, I can’t honestly say one way of doing things is better than another. My husband has been to one Mass, around twenty years ago, and, being also very familiar with an Anglican holy communion service, said he didn’t feel remotely out of place, fwiw.
From my perspective, I can’t honestly say one way of doing things is better than another. My husband has been to one Mass, around twenty years ago, and, being also very familiar with an Anglican holy communion service, said he didn’t feel remotely out of place, fwiw.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Please refrain from using the word “toxic”.
In my opinion, the Latin Mass is more reverent and more solemn than the English language Mass.
In my opinion, the Latin Mass is more reverent and more solemn than the English language Mass.
Last edited:
1
1neophyte
Guest
Please refrain from using the word “solemn”.
S
StarMapp
Guest
P
pianistclare
Guest
OK everybody take a side. Much like the mother of the Sons of Thunder did, ask Christ Himself:
Who do you love MORE??? Who gets to sit at your right and your left?
What do you think He would say?
It’s never “just a discussion”. It’s always a war and a judgment.
Like no one ever listened to the Gospel at Mass.
Just stop already.
Who do you love MORE??? Who gets to sit at your right and your left?
What do you think He would say?
It’s never “just a discussion”. It’s always a war and a judgment.
Like no one ever listened to the Gospel at Mass.
Just stop already.
Crusader13
New member
I can see you why you would be drawn to the Traditional Latin Mass (EF) over the Novus Ordo today. It’s not something that a person should feel bad about or made to feel like they need to justify or explain there reasons why.
I grew up with the NO form and it wasn’t until about 3 years ago that I attended my first Traditional Mass and I was blown away at the difference in how it was celebrated and noted how there appeared to be more of a reverence involved. This isn’t to say that priests in who celebrate the NO don’t show reverence, but the overall application and celebration of the EF was simply startling! I loved it!
Now I will say that within the last couple of years a parish near my home has started celebrating High Mass, but it was still the NO. I had never seen this before and it was amazing. There was more chant and latin involved and I had never seen this before in the NO.
It’s celebrated every Sunday at 11am so it wasn’t merely a one time thing.
I grew up with the NO form and it wasn’t until about 3 years ago that I attended my first Traditional Mass and I was blown away at the difference in how it was celebrated and noted how there appeared to be more of a reverence involved. This isn’t to say that priests in who celebrate the NO don’t show reverence, but the overall application and celebration of the EF was simply startling! I loved it!
Now I will say that within the last couple of years a parish near my home has started celebrating High Mass, but it was still the NO. I had never seen this before and it was amazing. There was more chant and latin involved and I had never seen this before in the NO.
It’s celebrated every Sunday at 11am so it wasn’t merely a one time thing.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
The EF is not the norm, and thus it will be celebrated with a little more formality.
If you go back to when the EF was the only Mass and talk to people who were adults then you will hear all sorts of stories about rushed, mumbled Masses.
In fact, my great uncles preferred the 7:30 am Mass on Sundays because they would be home by 8am, and that included the 7 minute walk to and from home.
The Church, in her wisdom, changed the Mass. It is wrong for anyone to insinuate that she did so to appease Protestants.
If you prefer the EF, by all means, attend. Do not say that the OF is deficient. That is about as far from “traditional” as you can get, as you are accusing the Church of something nefarious.
If you go back to when the EF was the only Mass and talk to people who were adults then you will hear all sorts of stories about rushed, mumbled Masses.
In fact, my great uncles preferred the 7:30 am Mass on Sundays because they would be home by 8am, and that included the 7 minute walk to and from home.
The Church, in her wisdom, changed the Mass. It is wrong for anyone to insinuate that she did so to appease Protestants.
If you prefer the EF, by all means, attend. Do not say that the OF is deficient. That is about as far from “traditional” as you can get, as you are accusing the Church of something nefarious.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
Well it is relevant to remember the pre-Vatican II Mass, when the TLM was on a massive scale (said the old man).
Today, when the TLM is offered in my diocese, only the devout show up; priests and laity. You don’t have the peeps who are only there to fulfill their obligation, you don’t have sullen teens whose parents made them go, you don’t have people daydreaming during the Mass like they do during all routine Masses, whether it be routine pre-1965 TLM or the current routine, which is the OF.
The EF in my diocese is a special occasion for these particular people. The drive a long distance to get there. They get together afterwards. There is no hurry out of the parking lot for the next Mass to pile in. The priests who choose to say the EF, say the EF devoutly; and also say the OF devoutly when back in their parishes. Laity too.
One might wish there was more of the kind of priests who strongly desired to say the TLM, and also, one might wish there were more devout laity, like the kind who attend the TLM. But does offering the TLM make priests, and lay attenders, more devout - especially if it became routine again? Maybe, maybe not.
I agree there were lots more devout Catholics in the 1950s than now. But is that correlation, or causation, with the liturgical forms?
The EF either when it was routine or now, when it is “special occasion”, is definitely better than the OF with liturgical abuses. Is it better than the OF when offered with reverence?
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
As I’m only in my twenties, I can’t comment on how things stood before the Council. You raise some interesting points here.
Regarding this part of your post, shouldn’t we consider the maxim lex orandi, lex credendi? A strong argument can be made for the correlation of the quality of liturgical worship with the beliefs of the faithful. Sure, things weren’t perfect before 1965. But now things are in an abysmal state - for example, few Catholics come to Mass even on Sundays and even fewer go to confession. Based on the tried and true test of lex orandi, lex credendi, I think it is prudent to assign at least some of the blame for the current crisis to a deficiency in the new liturgy.
Last edited:
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Pope Francis said to dig deeper in order to find out why young people are interested in TLM.
It is fairly apparent to me that the single biggest reason is simply due to the fact that it is newer, rarer, different, and, probably mostly - they think it is “a truer Mass”. Surprise, surprise…teenagers who want to be pius like it. So what is the Holy Father’s point? That those are shallow reasons for preferring TLM. Pope Benedict allowed TLM for the benefit of those who missed it from pre Vatican ll days, not as a novelty Mass for young people.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
No, your using that wrong. But anyway, the changes probably kept more people from leaving the Church throughout the decades than anything.
Last edited:
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
Summorum Pontificum issued by Pope Bededict XVI in 2007 does not specify that as the sole reason for the liberation of the Traditonal Mass. That was JPII’s 1988 Ecclesia Dei. SP
Furthermore, Benedict explicitly cites the interest of the youth in the Traditional Mass as a reason for issuing SP:
“Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.”
EDIT: this is not a quote directly from SP, but from the letter given to the Bishops by Pope Benedict along with SP
Last edited:
P
pianistclare
Guest
You are exactly right. The lack of catechesis is what keeps people from the Mass.
They don’t know what it is.
Period.
It wouldn’t matter if it were in Klingon. If they don’t feel like it’s important to their soul and eternal life, no amount of incense or fancy vestments are going to keep them coming. Sure, some people like the pomp and seemingly fancy trimmings. For a while, …but if their ROOT religious ed is lacking and they believe it’s not necessary to continue learning about their faith? That ship has sailed. Left the dock, Ain’t coming back. It has nothing to do with good or bad liturgy. I’ve said a miiion times, CAF is a hothouse for people who are really INTO their faith. Much of what we discuss here is not even on the radar of US Catholics, or Irish Catholics, or Hispanic Catholics, tbh.
They don’t know what it is.
Period.
It wouldn’t matter if it were in Klingon. If they don’t feel like it’s important to their soul and eternal life, no amount of incense or fancy vestments are going to keep them coming. Sure, some people like the pomp and seemingly fancy trimmings. For a while, …but if their ROOT religious ed is lacking and they believe it’s not necessary to continue learning about their faith? That ship has sailed. Left the dock, Ain’t coming back. It has nothing to do with good or bad liturgy. I’ve said a miiion times, CAF is a hothouse for people who are really INTO their faith. Much of what we discuss here is not even on the radar of US Catholics, or Irish Catholics, or Hispanic Catholics, tbh.
Last edited:
- Status