The good things about the N.O

[Sr_Sally]

Granted both Masses can be abused. I would argue that the abuses are of a different sort.

Nevertheless, I would argue that even if a Priest mumbles Latin, that still doesn’t prevent me from engaging with prayers that go back hundreds of years and were prayed by most fo the Saints in the Catholic tradition. In other words, the TLM isn’t as dependent on what the Priest does for someone participate fully in the Mass.

But if he’s up there mangling his Latin (dominos and cheerios) during the inaudible consecration how will you know?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

But if he’s up there mangling his Latin (dominos and cheerios) during the inaudible consecration how will you know?

Well, that’s exactly the point, I won’t know. And thus can pray the Mass just as well. Hence the TLM isn’t as dependent on the Priest.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Well, that’s exactly the point, I won’t know. And thus can pray the Mass just as well. Hence the TLM isn’t as dependent on the Priest.

It’s both the advantage and the disadvantage. It is harder for a really good priest to tailor the EF to the particular spiritual needs of his congregation, harder for a a bad one to tailor it so that it ignores, as far as is possible for a valid Mass, real needs and caters to imagined ones.

 

[bear06]

Actually, my concern isn’t so much with what people “prefer”, particularly in this day and age. I’m more concerned with which liturgy is organically developed and embodies the Catholic Faith in a more explicit and concrete way.

That’s why I like my specific Mass the best and would hope that all OFs would follow suit.

 

[SemiTrad]

Versatility - lots of abuse-free variations, ranging from guitar teen masses to neo-traditional masses (sometimes even in the same parish).

 

[NoPlaceLikeRome]

This is kinda OT but I have a story for Pious Mat of the

“I’d light a candle every day for ten years if we stopped doing [the Sign of Peace]”

I had a chaplain once who said extremely reverent OF Masses (paten under the chin and everything) and would always entirely omit the Sign of Peace: he went straight from “The peace of the Lord be with you always.” “And also with you.” to the Agnus Dei. However, every so often there were transitional deacons around to assist, and one day immediately after the “And also with you” Deacon N. piped up with an enthusiastic “Let us offer each other the sign of peace.”



OK not THAT funny or I would have laughed during Mass… I just sort of snickered mentally… anyhow back to the topic!

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

It’s both the advantage and the disadvantage. It is harder for a really good priest to tailor the EF to the particular spiritual needs of his congregation, harder for a a bad one to tailor it so that it ignores, as far as is possible for a valid Mass, real needs and caters to imagined ones.

Well, in my view, the EF with Gregorian chant, especially where the people get to sing the parts proper to them in Latin, is meeting the spiritual needs of the congregation, perhaps whether some in the congregation recognize it or not.

Sort of like Mom knowing the kids need to eat their vegetables because they are good for them, regardless of how much the kids say they’d rather just have dessert instead.

 

[SenorBells]

If the TLM was the only mass, and I can remember when it was,** there would be just as many abuses as there are now with the NO.** Requiring all priests to say only the TLM will not turn bad priests into good priests. Also, there are, unfortunatly, many Catholics who only go to mass because it’s a mortal sin to miss mass. These people will be just as unattentive and unparticipating at a TLM as at a NO mass.

So very true, and likely even less attentive and participative…

 

[jimcav]

If the TLM was the only mass, and I can remember when it was, there would be just as many abuses as there are now with the NO. Requiring all priests to say only the TLM will not turn bad priests into good priests. Also, there are, unfortunatly, many Catholics who only go to mass because it’s a mortal sin to miss mass. These people will be just as unattentive and unparticipating at a TLM as at a NO mass.

Excellent post!

The unattentive Catholics, as you so eloquently called them, are really the problem. The congregation has so much to do with whether a mass is reverent, or just a gaggle of people going through the motions. Parishoners that wear blue jeans, football jersies, and sneakers, that don’t sing, that don’t pray, that talk and yawn, chew gum, come late, leave early and actually talk on their cell phones, are simply so distracting that no mass, no matter what form, could possibly be reverent. If every mass was TLM, these same people would ruin that mass to!

If the Pope, the Bishops, and priests could stop these abuses by their parishoners, and get them to behave and dress in a proper reverent way, much of the arguing over which form of mass is “better” would go away, and we could all enjoy either mass…

 

[Like]

Well, that’s exactly the point, I won’t know. And thus can pray the Mass just as well. Hence the TLM isn’t as dependent on the Priest.

Brennan,
Thats not right! If the TLM is NOT dependent on a Priest, then it wouldn’t be a Mass, would it?

 

[Brendan]

The good thing about the NO, as mentioned above, is the larger lectionary of Scripture Readings, including both OT and NT readings…

I think that is a good thing that the TLM could benefit from.

That said, just about everything else is something that the N.O could learn from the TLM.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennan,
Thats not right! If the TLM is NOT dependent on a Priest, then it wouldn’t be a Mass, would it?

Of course every Mass is completely dependent on the Priest in regards to its validity. Without a Priest there would be no Mass, period.

I simply mean that as far as the liturgy being spiritually nourishing I don’t think the TLM is as dependent on the Priest.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Excellent post!

The unattentive Catholics, as you so eloquently called them, are really the problem. The congregation has so much to do with whether a mass is reverent, or just a gaggle of people going through the motions. Parishoners that wear blue jeans, football jersies, and sneakers, that don’t sing, that don’t pray, that talk and yawn, chew gum, come late, leave early and actually talk on their cell phones, are simply so distracting that no mass, no matter what form, could possibly be reverent. If every mass was TLM, these same people would ruin that mass to!

If the Pope, the Bishops, and priests could stop these abuses by their parishoners, and get them to behave and dress in a proper reverent way, much of the arguing over which form of mass is “better” would go away, and we could all enjoy either mass…

I would have to disagree here. I think people started dressing more casually because they perceived the NO to more accommodating to a casual attitude. When you switch from Gregorian chant to folk tunes people are going to think it is okay to go right along with that.

I’ll bet that where a TLM is instituted with Gregorian chant people, perhaps not immediately, but over time, will start dressing properly because they will perceive that they are at a serious event.

 

[ncjohn]

I would have to disagree here. I think people started dressing more casually because they perceived the NO to more accommodating to a casual attitude. When you switch from Gregorian chant to folk tunes people are going to think it is okay to go right along with that.

I’ll bet that where a TLM is instituted with Gregorian chant people, perhaps not immediately, but over time, will start dressing properly because they will perceive that they are at a serious event.

I don’t know about the dressing part, as it wasn’t an issue pre-V2, probably largely because there were few places where one dressed “casually” to go out for anything. But the lack of attention and reverence pre-V2 was every bit as bad as the worst OF Mass I have ever been to, at least in the dozen or so parishes I attended Mass at through the pre-V2 years and shortly after.

As an altar server for both types of Masses in both time frames, the looks on people’s faces then as they approached for communion was not any more or less reverent than now, just the same appearance of uninvolvement overall. Naturally I cannot comment on people’s dispositions as I cannot read minds or hearts, but the outward lack of enthusiasm just hasn’t really changed.

In my lifetime, it has always been my observation that Catholic Mass attendance is largely a “cultural expectation”, with the largest part of the population being uninvolved and there primarily to meet their “Sunday obligation”. That was true of the TLM before V2 and the OF since. It likely is not the case of the current TLM because the population there is there by specific choice. In my mind, the only thing that has changed is the culture, and we just live in a looser culture now. The Church didn’t create that culture but is affected by it and its looser expectations.

Quite frankly the OF Mass is the “right” Mass for those to whom it calls more clearly, just as the EF is the “right” Mass for those who feel God calling more clearly there. We are just different people with different ways of hearing God and different experiences. It’s not about one being objectively “better” than the other.

Peace,

 

[JeanneH]

Really? I’d light a candle every day for ten years if we stopped doing that…

RE: sign of peace

I am with you here. I find that it interrupts the mass. With so much disease out there I really don’ t like shaking hands .
JeanneH
I

 

[peregrinator_it]

In the interests of full disclosure: I’ve attended a Latin NO in the same parish for the bulk of my life. (Until recently. My location info is no longer accurate (I’ve done moved out to the Wild East) but I’m leaving it unchanged out of wishful thinking.)

I’ve also had the opportunity to attend the TLM in various forms High Mass, Low Mass and the dialogue Mass. Personally, for spiritual nourishment and conduciveness to praying the mass, I’d choose the Latin NO over any of these.

What’s good about the NO:

Others have said as much already, but I’ll repeat:

1. the audible Canon
2. the expanded Lectionary (big plus!)
3. it’s a better preserver of Gregorian Chant (Question: do the rubrics allow the congregation to chant the ordinary in the TLM?)

I especially appreciate being allowed to chant the responses and say the Confiteor and other prayers, which the congregation cannot do in the TLM.

As far as spiritual nourishment goes, being able to chant the responses combined with the audible Canon has enabled me to memorize the unchanging parts of the Mass, which is a huge aid to prayer both at Mass and in private meditation. What’s more, the Latin NO and particularly my love of this “dialogue” aspect of it, led me to the Divine Office (which I had had no exposure to when I was young; and which I would have found unappealing if I weren’t already used to this “dialogue” type of prayer.)

 

[Dempsey1919]

The good thing about the NO, as mentioned above, is the larger lectionary of Scripture Readings, including both OT and NT readings…

I have a feeling that the Holy Father may update certain aspects of the Tridentine Mass, for example, the calendar and maybe a “larger lectionary of Scripture Readings.” I have spoken to my Priest and he is believes that the curia will change these elements of the Mass in the future. Afterall, Vatican II did call for more Scripture within the Mass:

Sacrosanctum Concilium

In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.

Also:

The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.

The more I read, the more I come to believe that the Novus Ordo is not the Mass that the Vatican II Fathers had in mind. They did not advocate Mass said entirely in the vernacular:

Sacrosanctum Concilium

Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Although many OF Masses do have Gregorian Chant, it does not seem to be used as much as it is in the Tridentine Mass. Vatican II advocated the use of Gregorian Chant over other forms of music:

Sacrosanctum Concilium

The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

When reading Sacrosanctum Concilium, it is obvious that the Council Fathers wanted to enable adaptions of the liturgy to take place when needed. They particularly mention that the Mass may be changed slightly to better suit other cultures. However, it is also obvious that they did not call for the radical changes that did take place.

Most of the reasons for liking the Novus Ordo, for example the calendar and the greater use of scripture, were actually called for by Vatican II.

I don’t believe that the N.O. is the Mass of Vatican II. The Mass of Vatican II was the Tridentine Mass with slight revisions i.e greater use of scripture and some vernacular where appropriate.

I believe that the Church would benefit if the N.O was abolished and the Tridentine Mass was reinstated with the revisions that the Council called for. I honestly don’t think that this will ever happen but it is a nice thought.

If the Tridentine Mass was amended in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concilium, I think that the majority of faithful will attend, especially if they are educated on the matter.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

In the interests of full disclosure: I’ve attended a Latin NO in the same parish for the bulk of my life. (Until recently. My location info is no longer accurate (I’ve done moved out to the Wild East) but I’m leaving it unchanged out of wishful thinking.)

I’ve also had the opportunity to attend the TLM in various forms High Mass, Low Mass and the dialogue Mass. Personally, for spiritual nourishment and conduciveness to praying the mass, I’d choose the Latin NO over any of these.

What’s good about the NO:

Others have said as much already, but I’ll repeat:

1. the audible Canon
2. the expanded Lectionary (big plus!)
3. it’s a better preserver of Gregorian Chant (Question: do the rubrics allow the congregation to chant the ordinary in the TLM?)

I especially appreciate being allowed to chant the responses and say the Confiteor and other prayers, which the congregation cannot do in the TLM.

As far as spiritual nourishment goes, being able to chant the responses combined with the audible Canon has enabled me to memorize the unchanging parts of the Mass, which is a huge aid to prayer both at Mass and in private meditation. What’s more, the Latin NO and particularly my love of this “dialogue” aspect of it, led me to the Divine Office (which I had had no exposure to when I was young; and which I would have found unappealing if I weren’t already used to this “dialogue” type of prayer.)

I have been a few times to a Dominican rite traditional Latin Mass where the congregation, schola, and priest sang various parts of the Mass (including the confiteor as I remember). Definitely my favorite. So I don’t know of anything at all which would forbid the type of congregational participation you describe.

I assume that at the Latin NO you attend that they use Canon 1?

Actually, I have to admit that if they changed the TLM to have an audible canon I certainly wouldn’t get in a tizzy over it.

My primary issue with the NO even in Latin (which is better) is that I’m engaging in a liturgy where the prayers were altered, dropped, or added to by a committee from the 1960’s.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I have been a few times to a Dominican rite traditional Latin Mass where the congregation, schola, and priest sang various parts of the Mass (including the confiteor as I remember). Definitely my favorite. So I don’t know of anything at all which would forbid the type of congregational participation you describe.

It’s possible I’m mis-remembering, but I think at the TLM High Mass (provided by ICK) at my (old) parish the congregation chants the Ordinary (if the choir’s not singing a formal mass setting,) but only the servers say the Confiteor and other responses. I haven’t attended it very frequently, so I could be mistaken.

I used to attend a TLM Low Mass as a part of my job and there we were permitted to chant the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei. We were permitted (after some discussion with the priest) to say some of the responses; the dialogue at the beginning of the Canon (sursum corda) most notably, but not all. My memory of the Low Mass at my own parish is that even less vocal participation than this was permitted, but I may be mistaken.

My memory of the rubrics in my missal for the TLM was that most responses (etc.) were marked for the serves and not for the servers and congregation, so I presumed that’s why we didn’t make many responses (unfortunately, I’m separated from most of my books at the moment and can’t check this.)

I assume that at the Latin NO you attend that they use Canon 1?

I attended this parish for twenty-odd years under several different pastors- it depended on the priest. The current pastor only uses it on feasts. I don’t remember who used it and who didn’t anymore, but it was used frequently.

My primary issue with the NO even in Latin (which is better) is that I’m engaging in a liturgy where the prayers were altered, dropped, or added to by a committee from the 1960’s.

I have enough Latin to understand the prayers of the Mass and to compare a bit- and honestly I like most of the changes… perhaps it’s because I’ve grown up with them…

I especially appreciate “et omissione” in the Confiteor, for example, and I always find the non-scriptural “Mysterium fidei” in the midst of the Consecration jarring.

 

[franklinf]

I couldn’t agree more. And I also hate sitting in a pew with other people - why can’t they have separate chairs for everyone?..Where’s my hand sanitizer? Don’t look at me.

do you understand why we are at Mass? It is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Not some protestant worship service gathering where its just one big communal meal and we are all touchy feel and one big happy family just coming together. It is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The sign of peace is disruptive and has no place in the liturgy. The four points of the mass are adoration, imperation, reparation, and thanksgiving. Furthermore, what constructive point does your post serve? Because it certainly can’t be to prove how witty you are. hahhahah people want a solemn service to glorify God and witness the bloodless re-presentation of the Sacrifice at Calvary with no human contact and happiness. Your absolutely right - the sign of peace couldn’t come at a better time than in the middle of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.