Synod: Final Draft on Latin Mass

[Legatus]

Lux_et_veritas:

I believe Pope Benedict will open things a little. Many bishops have not been obedient to the call of Pope John Paul II to make it more widely available. It would have been nice if the synod would have taken care of it. Lack of discussion of the issue, imho, shows that most bishops are not as concerned with those who long for it. This needs to change. It does not affec those who desire to attend N.O. Masses free of liturgical abuse, or N.O. Masses done very traditional, such as at my parish.

How many of those who long for the TLM would be grateful for a Novus Ordo celebrated very traditionally, in Latin, ad orientem, without the handshakes, and with a very high level of reverence. This suits me just fine.

I was born in 1962 and raised in the kum-ba-yah of the 70’s. I can honestly say that I have never experienced the Mass in all its splendor until I walked through the doors of Assumption Grotto parish in Detroit, where the Novus Ordo is celebrated Ad Orientem, and in Latin. More important than the Latin and Ad Orientem stance is that it was completely free of liturgical abuse. And, the pastor elects not to have the “sign of peace”. Communion is still delivered at a rail and it is intincted and distributed only by the parish priests (read that, no Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist)

All of this shocked me the first time I experienced it and I fell madly in love with it just a few days later.

What I am trying to say is that the TLM is not the only game in town that will enable you to feel the richness of the Mass. Way too many parishes are still practicing methods that amount to liturgical abuse. This is not the fault of the Novus Ordo, rather it is the fault of those who should know that they cannot make the Mass their own. It does not belong to them.

In short, hunt for a parish where the Novus Ordo is celebrated in a reverent, traditional manner. It looks like this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

While I agree that, judging by the photo and your description, the Novus Ordo Mass at Assumption Grotto Church is a great improvement over the normal Novus Ordo Mass, a reading though of both the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass would show anyone that there is a considerable difference between the two with much being lost in the Novus Ordo. Check epecially the Offertory prayers.

And in terrms of external ceremonial, This is not a Solemn High Mass with deacon and subdeacon nor could it be. Subdeacons don’t exist in the Novus Ordo. Were a bishop celebrating a Pontifical Mass the diferences would be, if anything, greater. You show the priest at the Altar where even the Elevations are shorn of half of their genuflections and, presumably, for the first part of the Mass the priest was away from the altar at the chair.

God Bless the pastor at Assumption Grotto Church for what he has done but essentially his success lies in making the Novus Ordo Mass look and sound as much as possible like the Tridentine Mass so why not, if possible, go for the real thing.

 

[harinkj]

Here is a link to the final statement:

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=78713

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Legatus:

While I agree that, judging by the photo and your description, the Novus Ordo Mass at Assumption Grotto Church is a great improvement over the normal Novus Ordo Mass, a reading though of both the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass would show anyone that there is a considerable difference between the two with much being lost in the Novus Ordo. Check epecially the Offertory prayers.

And in terrms of external ceremonial, This is not a Solemn High Mass with deacon and subdeacon nor could it be. Subdeacons don’t exist in the Novus Ordo. Were a bishop celebrating a Pontifical Mass the diferences would be, if anything, greater. You show the priest at the Altar where even the Elevations are shorn of half of their genuflections and, presumably, for the first part of the Mass the priest was away from the altar at the chair.

God Bless the pastor at Assumption Grotto Church for what he has done but essentially his success lies in making the Novus Ordo Mass look and sound as much as possible like the Tridentine Mass so why not, if possible, go for the real thing.

From what I am told, he has tried, but it has not been granted. If I am correct, there are three churches who have the Indult in the Archdiocese of Detroit. It would be nice if Assumption Grotto had the Indult at least for special occassions.

I won’t even try to debate you on how the TLM is more reverential. While I have never been able to attend one I have read through an online missal and observed, for example, just how long the Confiteor lasts. I can only imagine how the Consecration must be.

Obligations at my new parish (namely choir) cause me to not travel to one of the 3 that have it yet - maybe next summer.

 

[SFH]

Given the latinization that occurred to the Eastern Rite liturgies in the 1600s and 1700s, I find it troubling that a “Byzantine Catholic” would be so insensitive to a Latin Rite Catholic’s complaints about the protestantization of the Latin Rite.

ByzCath:

This shows a grave misunderstanding of what Tradition is.

When the TLM was mandated for the whole Church was that a departure from Tradition?

What about obedience and the fact that the Church can and does change the form of the Sacraments?

I do not believe your premise that the majority of youth at WYD would agree with you, After all, the Mass at WYD is the Mass of the Latin Church, not the TLM. And even if they did, they still are a minority of the Church and I bet they are even a minority of the youth in the Church. After all, not every youth can be at WYD nor can every diocese send every youth to it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

SFH:

Given the latinization that occurred to the Eastern Rite liturgies in the 1600s and 1700s, I find it troubling that a “Byzantine Catholic” would be so insensitive to a Latin Rite Catholic’s complaints about the protestantization of the Latin Rite.

As I am a Catholic you have no right to question anything about my comments here.

I would add, the latinizations did not occur until the 20 century. They were forced upon us in the 1930’s. Some of the Byzantine Churches did not even enter into communion with Rome until the late 1700’s.

I must also say that you do not know much about me. I love the Liturgy, all of it from all the Rites. I am tying to immerse myself in as much of it as I can. Also if you would have checked out the link in my signature you will find that while I am a Byzantine Catholic, I will be entering into formation in a Latin Order. So one day, God willing, I will be bi-ritual.

 

[Chris_in_Mich]

Lux_et_veritas:

From what I am told, he has tried, but it has not been granted. If I am correct, there are three churches who have the Indult in the Archdiocese of Detroit. It would be nice if Assumption Grotto had the Indult at least for special occassions.

There is only one indult TLM in the Archdiocese of Detroit, 9:30 Sunday at St. Josaphat. Fr. Perrone, Pastor of Assumption Grotto is an occasional celebrant, and Fr. Titus Kieninger and Fr. Wolfgang Seitz of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross are more frequent celebrants, and they spend much of their time at AG. A link to the ongoing thread for the TLM in Detroit is below.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=40139

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Thanks for clarifying Chris. For some reason I thought there were three churches that had it. Maybe I’m confusing it with some that have N.O. in Latin. I had heard that Fr. Perrone has done this Mass there.

I still think Grotto would be a most fitting parish for the Indult, even if only on occassion (i.e. monthly). It is a historical site and the two would go hand in hand.

Yes, the Canons work on the grounds of Assumption Grotto in between assignments that take them all over giving retreats.

Are you at Grotto or do you are you a regular at St. Josephat?

 

[Chris_in_Mich]

Lux_et_veritas:

Thanks for clarifying Chris. For some reason I thought there were three churches that had it. Maybe I’m confusing it with some that have N.O. in Latin. I had heard that Fr. Perrone has done this Mass there.

I still think Grotto would be a most fitting parish for the Indult, even if only on occassion (i.e. monthly). It is a historical site and the two would go hand in hand.

Yes, the Canons work on the grounds of Assumption Grotto in between assignments that take them all over giving retreats.

Are you at Grotto or do you are you a regular at St. Josephat?

I’m a regular at St. Josaphat, but I’ve been to Grotto quite a few times, most recently for the Assumption and I admire much about the parish. As nicely as the NO is celebrated there I prefer the TLM.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Thanks for reminding me about that thread. I do want to get over to St. Josephat, but I’m so hooked on Grotto.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

harinkj:

Here is a link to the final statement:

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=78713

• Kathie :bowdown:

Well…It didn’t really say anything at all about it.

Better than forbidding it, I suppose.

I believe Pope Benedict will open things a little. Many bishops have not been obedient to the call of Pope John Paul II to make it more widely available. It would have been nice if the synod would have taken care of it. Lack of discussion of the issue, imho, shows that most bishops are not as concerned with those who long for it. This needs to change. It does not affec those who desire to attend N.O. Masses free of liturgical abuse, or N.O. Masses done very traditional, such as at my parish.

How many of those who long for the TLM would be grateful for a Novus Ordo celebrated very traditionally, in Latin, ad orientem, without the handshakes, and with a very high level of reverence. This suits me just fine.

I was born in 1962 and raised in the kum-ba-yah of the 70’s. I can honestly say that I have never experienced the Mass in all its splendor until I walked through the doors of Assumption Grotto parish in Detroit, where the Novus Ordo is celebrated Ad Orientem, and in Latin. More important than the Latin and Ad Orientem stance is that it was completely free of liturgical abuse. And, the pastor elects not to have the “sign of peace”. Communion is still delivered at a rail and it is intincted and distributed only by the parish priests (read that, no Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist)

All of this shocked me the first time I experienced it and I fell madly in love with it just a few days later.

What I am trying to say is that the TLM is not the only game in town that will enable you to feel the richness of the Mass. Way too many parishes are still practicing methods that amount to liturgical abuse. This is not the fault of the Novus Ordo, rather it is the fault of those who should know that they cannot make the Mass their own. It does not belong to them.

In short, hunt for a parish where the Novus Ordo is celebrated in a reverent, traditional manner. It looks like this:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/di_kor/PICT0074_8x10_7b.jpg

Wow. I never knew Novus Ordo could be celebrated that way.

I guess that the turning of the altars was–as many say–a way to put the focus on the people rather than on the Eucharist. What a beautiful Church!

God Bless your pastor, God bless properly celebrated Novus Ordo Masses, the true Mass of Vatican II!

God Bless the Roman Catholic Church!

 

[Psalm45_9]

Servus Pio XII:

Wow. I never knew Novus Ordo could be celebrated that way.

Most people do not and it is sad, we need to spread the word. A priest will not be punished for insubordination if he so chooses to celebrate the N.O. like this.

 

[JNB]

ByzCath:

This shows a grave misunderstanding of what Tradition is.

When the TLM was mandated for the whole Church was that a departure from Tradition?

What about obedience and the fact that the Church can and does change the form of the Sacraments?

I do not believe your premise that the majority of youth at WYD would agree with you, After all, the Mass at WYD is the Mass of the Latin Church, not the TLM. And even if they did, they still are a minority of the Church and I bet they are even a minority of the youth in the Church. After all, not every youth can be at WYD nor can every diocese send every youth to it.

Again, how many times will you repeat this LIE. The TLM when it was mandated for the entire Latin Rite was not a break from tradition. It was the rite in use at Rome at the time, and it simpily took o ver for various local usage that were less than 200 years old. Again, the TLM in 1570 that replaced a local use less than 200 years old was more or less like the local use in being ad orientem, entirely in Latin, using the altar rail, all using variations of the Roman Canon.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

JNB:

Again, how many times will you repeat this LIE. The TLM when it was mandated for the entire Latin Rite was not a break from tradition. It was the rite in use at Rome at the time, and it simpily took o ver for various local usage that were less than 200 years old. Again, the TLM in 1570 that replaced a local use less than 200 years old was more or less like the local use in being ad orientem, entirely in Latin, using the altar rail, all using variations of the Roman Canon.

Neither is the current Mass a break from Tradition. The TLM was not the rite of the whole Church as each Diocese kept its own Missal. Until you can prove that every Dioceses Missal matched the TLM you can not make this statement.

I would also add that the TLM of the 1962 Missal is not what was mandated in 1570. As there were additions to it, the Last Gospel, the St Michael prayer, the prayers at the foot of the Altar were not in the original Missal. So the TLM as it is today is not what was mandated.

Anyways, to argue that the current Mass is a break form Tradition denies what the Church teaches as it is fully within the power of the Church to change the form of the Mass as was done when the Church mandated the use of the Missal of Rome on the whole Latin Church.

 

[JNB]

ByzCath:

Neither is the current Mass a break from Tradition. The TLM was not the rite of the whole Church as each Diocese kept its own Missal. Until you can prove that every Dioceses Missal matched the TLM you can not make this statement.

I would also add that the TLM of the 1962 Missal is not what was mandated in 1570. As there were additions to it, the Last Gospel, the St Michael prayer, the prayers at the foot of the Altar were not in the original Missal. So the TLM as it is today is not what was mandated.

Anyways, to argue that the current Mass is a break form Tradition denies what the Church teaches as it is fully within the power of the Church to change the form of the Mass as was done when the Church mandated the use of the Missal of Rome on the whole Latin Church.

Again, how many times must many other posters tell you the same thing. The various missals used by various diocese before 1570 were largely the same, with some differences in the callendar and maybe a few of tyhe prayers and where they were in the missal, that said LET ME REPEAT THIS. The various liturgical rites, such as the Sarum rite, the Gallacian Rite, the Dominican rite, the Ambrsian Rite, the Mozambaric Rite, the rite of Lyon and so on all used the Roman Canon, all were celebrated entirely in Latin, Ad Orientem and were all on one year liturgical callendars. All of these rites at parishes that were set up in the same way, the main difference was some made use out of rood iron screens rather than altar rails.

Again, I do not know what you have against the TLM, but please do not spread half truths to try to prove a point, it only undermines what you are trying to say. The adjustments parishes had to go though in 1570 were far more minor then what took place after Vatican II, and thats a FACT that no sane man would deny.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Servus Pio XII:

Now, have you had three "EDIT"Protestants, one on e-mail, one direct, and one via phone ask you why no one else can receive your communion? If there were no similarity, why would they ask this.

Your conclusion (that the Mass has been protestantized) cannot be logically drawn from this question. MOST protestant congregations/denominations have OPEN Communion, that is to say that any baptized person may rec. Your 3 questioning protestants may well have only been questioning why the Catholic Church did not follow this practice. They could as easily asked the same question after a TLM Mass or at a Pauline Mass in Spanish or a Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy.

And yes, I get frequent questions from Protestant friends and family members as to why they cannot receive in the Catholic Church. My accusation that you know nothing about Protestants or their services is based on what you’ve alledged about the Pauline Mass and is confirmed in your statement about your 3 protestant friends (that OUR Mass must be the same as THEIR service, or they wouldn’t ask why they cannot go to Communion in a Catholic Church). I’m 43, was raised Baptist in the South, converted to the Episcopal Church, and then to the Catholic Church. I’ve visited gobs of Protestant churches and interacted with friends who range from High Church Anglicans to “holy roller” Assembly of God devotees. You’re 14, you were raised by Catholics (you’ve admitted as much in other threads), and you have no idea what you are talking about. You’ve bought into a bunch of erroneous, jingoistic, inflammatory distortions by radical traditionalists.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Tantum ergo:

Fast forward to 2000. I’ve had 25 years of Catholic masses starting with folk masses in 1975, the birth of hand holding, everyone around the altar after the great amen (everyone singing the doxology), gender inclusive language, the sign of peace --high five–apt, because it often took at least 5 minutes for everybody to roam the church and hug and kiss everybody else–, lots and lots of women and fewer and fewer men except the priest “on the altar”, communion in the hand, and yes, several years of “communion bread” recipes and even little wine cup individual servings in the late 70s at college.

And off I go to the UCC. But now. . .their readings in the lectionary are the same as ours. The sign of peace–even in the same spot during worship. Bread and wine. The prayers are much more “uniform”. The creed is the same, and, weirdest of all, they are actually singing hymns by the great masters including Palestrina in four part harmony with organ, while back at the Catholic Church we have a “keyboardist” who turns everything into Barry Manilow style music, including the obligatory “chord change” after the second verse and the glissando to end every single piece of music whether it is a hymn, the sanctus, or the “music to watch father elevate the host by”, and anywhere from 3 to 5 women who wander up and “sing along”, in unison, out of tune and often out of time.

PLEASE forgive me if any of this is uncharitable. I do not mean it to be. I am trying to be both accurate (sometimes the truth hurts) yet charitable, and I know the majority of these people are probably far holier than I, and certainly kinder. But I must try to convey as accurately as possible the things I experienced. Again, mea culpa if anything is mean or hurtful.

Suddenly, that UCC service seems far more similar to a Catholic mass of today than it did 30 years ago.
And while I have not been in the Episcopal church in town quite so often, and while the KJV type readings seemed more “old style” than our NAB, again, its service, especially in the prayer format, from the Kyrie to the Lamb of God, seems more similar too.

So, while I don’t know about the Mass being “protestantized”, I know that at least where I am (VT) and when (2005), the Mass in the towns I have lived is more similar to protestant services than I would have dreamed years ago.

Of course, some of this may be due to changes the protestants are making. Several of the ministers I know are surprisingly knowledgeable of the “old” Catholic faith and some of them (UCC churches are VERY individual, some of them are liberal and some would be quite comfortable in many ways at a Latin Mass) seem to be both receptive to and appreciative of the Catholic Mass.

?

BUT…the structure of the Pauline Mass at the time of its promulgation was NOT similar to Protestant services, except vague similarites to the Anglican service, which had been taken from the Catholic service anyway! Radical traditionalists insist
that the Mass is Protestant in structure and in intent (ie, not a Sacrifice). Nothing could be further from the truth. NOW, is there a greater “casualness” in the Mass today? Yes, IN SOME PLACES, that is the case. I’m saying that isn’t necessarily Protestant. In the Baptist Church of my youth, we wore suits to Sunday services. In my Catholic parish, the overwhelming majority of men don’t wear suits. Is that Protestant or is that casual? No Baptists, Presbyterians, or Methodists (in the 20-25 years) would have, in the middle of the Commnion service/Lord’s Supper, paused to exchange the Sign of Peace. Baptists (and almost all other congregational Ana-baptists) sit to receive the Lord’s Supper, as do denominations of the Clavinist reform tradition. Methodists actually kneel at an altar rail, as do their Episcopal/Anglican antecedants. The only place where I received Communion in procession (prior to coming home to Rome, where I’ve never received on my knees, either in the Latin rite or the Byzantine) was when I participated in diocesan conventions in both Texas and Colorado as an Episcopalian.

ALSO, Protestants of even fundamentalist backgrounds are seeing the value of more liturgical worship. Seventh and James Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, one block from my alma mater, Baylor University, the “buckle on the Bible Belt,” began observing the liturgical year, an almost unheard of thing among Southern Baptists. They don’t put on robes or light candles, but it was still a radical departure from what went before. I think this trend will continue.

The assertion that the Mass was protestantized at the Council is unfounded, as is the assertion that the TLM is “more Catholic.” The Pauline Mass is the normative Mass of the Church, because it was promulgated as such by one Pope and celebrated by that pope and his three immediate successors.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

ByzCath:

Neither is the current Mass a break from Tradition. The TLM was not the rite of the whole Church as each Diocese kept its own Missal. Until you can prove that every Dioceses Missal matched the TLM you can not make this statement.

I would also add that the TLM of the 1962 Missal is not what was mandated in 1570. As there were additions to it, the Last Gospel, the St Michael prayer, the prayers at the foot of the Altar were not in the original Missal. So the TLM as it is today is not what was mandated.

Anyways, to argue that the current Mass is a break form Tradition denies what the Church teaches as it is fully within the power of the Church to change the form of the Mass as was done when the Church mandated the use of the Missal of Rome on the whole Latin Church.

It seems to me that you are employing a rather loose sense of tradition, roughly, carried out with legitimate authority and having strong ties to prior practices. I agree that the current missal is traditional in this sense.

However, the current ordo missae also represents a break with the Church’s principles of organic liturgical development. It this sense it is very much non-traditional. Only a few years ago, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger referred to the Mass of Paul VI as a “fabrication.” He doesn’t seem to have recanted this position. As he is currently pope I think his opinion on the traditional character of this missal should be given at least as much weight as yours. The question at hand when considering whether the current Mass is traditional is, “Does this Mass flow organically out of previously versions in the same way this has been accomplished throughout the history of the Church?”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Andreas Hofer:

However, the current ordo missae also represents a break with the Church’s principles of organic liturgical development. It this sense it is very much non-traditional.

Yes, I can understand that, but when the TLM was mandated it was not an organic growth in all the dioceses where it was put in now was it?

Also we can look at the suppression of the Sarum rite.

Anyways, it is not for us to decide what is “traditional” nor what the proper form of the Mass should be. That is the job of the Church, which it has done.

To be stuck on the form in such a rigid way is not a good thing. Especially when the current form is fully vaild.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

JNB:

Again, how many times must many other posters tell you the same thing. The various missals used by various diocese before 1570 were largely the same, with some differences in the callendar and maybe a few of tyhe prayers and where they were in the missal, that said LET ME REPEAT THIS. The various liturgical rites, such as the Sarum rite, the Gallacian Rite, the Dominican rite, the Ambrsian Rite, the Mozambaric Rite, the rite of Lyon and so on all used the Roman Canon, all were celebrated entirely in Latin, Ad Orientem and were all on one year liturgical callendars. All of these rites at parishes that were set up in the same way, the main difference was some made use out of rood iron screens rather than altar rails.

Again, I do not know what you have against the TLM, but please do not spread half truths to try to prove a point, it only undermines what you are trying to say. The adjustments parishes had to go though in 1570 were far more minor then what took place after Vatican II, and thats a FACT that no sane man would deny.

When you provide copies of each dioceses’ Missal and show this to be true then you will be believed.

As for that, the Sarum rite resembles the TLM in the same way that the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom resembles the TLM.

Having said that, I will not reply to you any longer as you accuse me of doing what you are doing, spreading half-truths and you do not provide any evidence of what you say. We are at an impasse and neither of us will persuade the other.

Please I do not like the condescending tone you have taken in these last couple of posts.

Of course, you can reply if you wish but I will not see them any longer.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

ByzCath:

Yes, I can understand that, but when the TLM was mandated it was not an organic growth in all the dioceses where it was put in now was it?

Also we can look at the suppression of the Sarum rite.

Anyways, it is not for us to decide what is “traditional” nor what the proper form of the Mass should be. That is the job of the Church, which it has done.

To be stuck on the form in such a rigid way is not a good thing. Especially when the current form is fully vaild.

As the concept of organic growth implies change, I don’t think it’s fair to demand proof that all diocesan missals matched the Pian missal at the time of its promulgation. However, I will readily confess that I do not have sources to show a comparison of the missals already in use with the newly mandated missal in order to prove organic growth. I have simply trusted the judgment of “my betters,” in this case the pope, that what occurred this time around is something different. Seeing as this is based on the personal opinion of a select few, I am open to reforming that view of the development of the Pauline missal, but for now I’m trusting the thought of Ratzinger/Gamber.

Also, I agree that one should not develop a slavish devotion to an exact liturgical form. A traditionalist who advocates this is intentionally blind to the reforms conducted on the Pian missal until it was supplanted in 1970. I think that if traditionalism seeks to remain forever in 1962 it will die out, because the Church, even the traditional Church, is still living and growing. At the very least it would benefit the adherents of the old missal to consider incorporating those saints canonized since 1962 into the liturgical calendar in some way. Organic growth is not only a guiding principle but IMO a necessity for a living organism such as the Church.