Some thoughts about the two forms of Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter anonymous1995
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anonymous1995

Guest
Having read through some posts on CAF concerning the vehement debates regarding the Extraordinary Form (EF) of Mass and the Novus Ordo (NO), some ideas pop up in my mind:
  1. First of all, every Catholic is obliged to obey what has been promulgated in the Vatican II Council. Ecumenical Councils and Papacy are the basis of Apostolic Succession which define what ‘Catholicism’ is; the denial of the Pope is sheer aberrance from teachings of God, for it has been promised that Holy Spirit will guide our Church.
  2. Many disputes actually originate from misconceived impressions on what has been taught in Vatican II. This I’m not going to delve into it - many people have raised out the point.
  3. There is indeed a necessity to promote the NO. Oriented in a modern era in which the Holy Catholic Church is no longer a regional sect confined to the European continent and America, but has developed into a world religion heading flocks of the faithful from Asia and Africa, the Church has to care for the fact that outside European countries, the roots of Latin and Western cultural practices are really weak. Latin has become a hindrance in evangelization outside the old Christendom. For instance, not only did the faithful had abysmal knowledge of Latin, many non-European priests also found it difficult to follow the Latin rubrics and understand the Holy Mass.
Some may argue that the Latin language should not be a major factor impeding true devotion. This is true only when all faithful are well-educated about the meanings of symbolism and Latin Mass rituals. Yet, the truth is, many non-Europeans, coming from pagan or Eastern religious backgrounds, often hold the perception that Catholicism is foreign merely based on the language of the Mass, hence rejecting the Holy faith. NO, if properly imposed, solves the language barrier while preserving the reverence and essence of the Holy Mass.
  1. Some argue that the characteristic silence present in the Tridentine Mass offers a more enriching spiritual experience for the faithful. I agree with the point. Yet, according to my observation, the NO in my parish has adequate silence for personal reflection, e.g. post-communion silence, silence before offerings, etc. Moreover, many Tridentine Masses have flowery polyphonic music which carry little significance other than auditory enjoyment, and it can be distracting as well.
  2. Having said that, I still want EF to be preserved parallel to the NO. EF and NO are complementary. Younger generations have the right to learn about the liturgy used for years.
  3. I want more Chants in NO Masses. Chants are Catholic in nature and should not be gone.
Any comments?
 
anonymous1995 said:
Having read through some posts on CAF concerning the vehement debates regarding the Extraordinary Form (EF) of Mass and the Novus Ordo (NO), some ideas pop up in my mind:
  1. First of all, every Catholic is obliged to obey what has been promulgated in the Vatican II Council. Ecumenical Councils and Papacy are the basis of Apostolic Succession which define what ‘Catholicism’ is; the denial of the Pope is sheer aberrance from teachings of God, for it has been promised that Holy Spirit will guide our Church.
  2. Many disputes actually originate from misconceived impressions on what has been taught in Vatican II. This I’m not going to delve into it - many people have raised out the point.
  3. There is indeed a necessity to promote the NO. Oriented in a modern era in which the Holy Catholic Church is no longer a regional sect confined to the European continent and America, but has developed into a world religion heading flocks of the faithful from Asia and Africa, the Church has to care for the fact that outside European countries, the roots of Latin and Western cultural practices are really weak. Latin has become a hindrance in evangelization outside the old Christendom. For instance, not only did the faithful had abysmal knowledge of Latin, many non-European priests also found it difficult to follow the Latin rubrics and understand the Holy Mass.
Some may argue that the Latin language should not be a major factor impeding true devotion. This is true only when all faithful are well-educated about the meanings of symbolism and Latin Mass rituals. Yet, the truth is, many non-Europeans, coming from pagan or Eastern religious backgrounds, often hold the perception that Catholicism is foreign merely based on the language of the Mass, hence rejecting the Holy faith. NO, if properly imposed, solves the language barrier while preserving the reverence and essence of the Holy Mass.
  1. Some argue that the characteristic silence present in the Tridentine Mass offers a more enriching spiritual experience for the faithful. I agree with the point. Yet, according to my observation, the NO in my parish has adequate silence for personal reflection, e.g. post-communion silence, silence before offerings, etc. Moreover, many Tridentine Masses have flowery polyphonic music which carry little significance other than auditory enjoyment, and it can be distracting as well.
  2. Having said that, I still want EF to be preserved parallel to the NO. EF and NO are complementary. Younger generations have the right to learn about the liturgy used for years.
  3. I want more Chants in NO Masses. Chants are Catholic in nature and should not be gone.
Any comments?
Click to expand...
This may seem nit-picky, but I believe the two forms of the Mass are more properly known as Extraordinary Form (EF) and Ordinary Form (OF). Having the Ordinary Form referred to as “NO Mass” all too often has been used here to denigrate, diminish, criticize, and cast aspersions on the Ordinary Form of the Mass and its validity. I’m sure that was not your intention, but it’s a sore spot.
 
anonymous1995 said:
Having read through some posts on CAF concerning the vehement debates regarding the Extraordinary Form (EF) of Mass and the Novus Ordo (NO), some ideas pop up in my mind:
  1. First of all, every Catholic is obliged to obey what has been promulgated in the Vatican II Council. Ecumenical Councils and Papacy are the basis of Apostolic Succession which define what ‘Catholicism’ is; the denial of the Pope is sheer aberrance from teachings of God, for it has been promised that Holy Spirit will guide our Church.
  2. Many disputes actually originate from misconceived impressions on what has been taught in Vatican II. This I’m not going to delve into it - many people have raised out the point.
  3. **There is indeed a necessity to promote the NO. Oriented in a modern era in which the Holy Catholic Church is no longer a regional sect confined to the European continent and America, but has developed into a world religion heading flocks of the faithful from Asia and Africa, the Church has to care for the fact that outside European countries, the roots of Latin and Western cultural practices are really weak. Latin has become a hindrance in evangelization outside the old Christendom. For instance, not only did the faithful had abysmal knowledge of Latin, many non-European priests also found it difficult to follow the Latin rubrics and understand the Holy Mass.
Some may argue that the Latin language should not be a major factor impeding true devotion. This is true only when all faithful are well-educated about the meanings of symbolism and Latin Mass rituals. Yet, the truth is, many non-Europeans, coming from pagan or Eastern religious backgrounds, often hold the perception that Catholicism is foreign merely based on the language of the Mass, hence rejecting the Holy faith. NO, if properly imposed, solves the language barrier while preserving the reverence and essence of the Holy Mass.
**
4. Some argue that the characteristic silence present in the Tridentine Mass offers a more enriching spiritual experience for the faithful. I agree with the point. Yet, according to my observation, the NO in my parish has adequate silence for personal reflection, e.g. post-communion silence, silence before offerings, etc. Moreover, many Tridentine Masses have flowery polyphonic music which carry little significance other than auditory enjoyment, and it can be distracting as well.
  1. Having said that, I still want EF to be preserved parallel to the NO. EF and NO are complementary. Younger generations have the right to learn about the liturgy used for years.
  2. I want more Chants in NO Masses. Chants are Catholic in nature and should not be gone.
Any comments?
Click to expand...
Funny, I was under the impression that Catholicism had expanded outside of Europe well over a thousand years ago, especially considering that it did not even originate there.Guess I was wrong about that one.

As to Latin, for some reason the Church managed to expand throughout the entire world when Latin was the language of the Mass and of the Church itself, as it still officially is.

If Latin is the huge hindrance as you claim, how was that possible?
 
The church is still growing (quickly) in the developing countries, especially in Africa, and Asia, and is still the biggest, and fastest growing faith in the US. (so the Internet says lol)
None of these are places where Latin is widely spoken, so a liturgy based in the local language would surely be easier to evangelise with, rather than teaching converts and seminary students to speak a dead language before they start religious study?
On the other hand I think the beautiful traditions of the Tridentine mass should be preserved and kept alive for future generations to appreciate.
As a student of languages, I really wish that Latin hadn’t died as a language outside of the church, but maybe the church could be a key player in reviving Latin by teaching it in catholic schools once more?
 
BlaconPaul said:
The church is still growing (quickly) in the developing countries, especially in Africa, and Asia, and is still the biggest, and fastest growing faith in the US. (so the Internet says lol)
None of these are places where Latin is widely spoken, so a liturgy based in the local language would surely be easier to evangelise with, rather than teaching converts and seminary students to speak a dead language before they start religious study?
On the other hand I think the beautiful traditions of the Tridentine mass should be preserved and kept alive for future generations to appreciate.
As a student of languages, I really wish that Latin hadn’t died as a language outside of the church, but maybe the church could be a key player in reviving Latin by teaching it in catholic schools once more?
Click to expand...
My question remains unanswered. If the use of Latin, hinders evangelization, how did Catholicism spread in areas where Latin was completely unknown, quite successfully, hundreds of years ago?

Perhaps in reality it it is not and never was the hinderance that those who oppose the use of the language claim.
 
anonymous1995 said:
Any comments?
Click to expand...
Latin isn’t to “blame” for anything whatsoever. For the laity, the amount of Latin one needs to learn to assist a TLM is minimal.

Really, this Apostolic Constitution says it all…

**"The nature of Latin

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin for mal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity"4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.**”

…read it all here
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top