The "New" Apologists and the "Old" Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lepanto

Guest
We constantly praise the Eastern Church (which I am all FOR!), we give kudos for our Jewish history (fine), we speak favorably of various protestant rites, we always look at the first or second century liturgies HOWEVER we are simply petrified at the Immemorial Mass of all time. We make fun of it. We never hesitate to put it down. Why?

“New” apologists whom I otherwise admire such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating appear to be embarassed by the Traditional Latin Mass. With some of these apologists if you mention the Old Mass they get all nervous, they get frustrated. It is like they HATE it and are embarassed by it. Why?

But bring up the Anglican so-called “Mass,” the Lutheran Rite, the various Eastern rites (which I DO think are wonderful) they LOVE it and get all giddy. However, mention the Mass of all times and they seem to despise it. I really don’t get it. Why?
 
My theory is that some are threatened by it - they don’t understand it and it’s mystery is too much a myster for them.

Others may fear it will return and they will lose the current rite they may have grown up in and like (so they should commisurate with those who lost this rite)

Still others think when we praise the Tridentine Rite we are saying there is something wrong with the current Rite (some are saying that but they should be aware that a condition of having the indult Mass is acceptance of the N.O. Mass as valid)

Rome has recently said that we who prefer the Traditional Mass should be given respect.

I was not aware that Karl Keating and Scott Hahn had a problem with the Tridentine Mass - maybe I am in the wrong forum:whistle:
Maybe its their age or maybe they are converts from protestantism and there is more similarity to the nom than the tlm

However a recent poll on this forum shows that most forum members think both rites should coexist and more people prefer the Tridentine Mass than not.
 
40.png
lepanto:
We constantly praise the Eastern Church (which I am all FOR!), we give kudos for our Jewish history (fine), we speak favorably of various protestant rites, we always look at the first or second century liturgies HOWEVER we are simply petrified at the Immemorial Mass of all time. We make fun of it. We never hesitate to put it down. Why?

“New” apologists whom I otherwise admire such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating appear to be embarassed by the Traditional Latin Mass. With some of these apologists if you mention the Old Mass they get all nervous, they get frustrated. It is like they HATE it and are embarassed by it. Why?

But bring up the Anglican so-called “Mass,” the Lutheran Rite, the various Eastern rites (which I DO think are wonderful) they LOVE it and get all giddy. However, mention the Mass of all times and they seem to despise it. I really don’t get it. Why?
Click to expand...
Some people seem to believe that there is something inherently wrong with the Novus Ordo Mass. They are quite mistaken. Likewise, some people believe a forced return to the Tridentine Mass would be the silver bullet that would cure all the liturgical ills of the Catholic Church. Again, absolute poppycock.

The Novus Ordo Mass is no better or worse than the Tridentine Mass, even though the Tridentine Mass requires an indult. It’s ironic actually – many who feel receiving in hand is interior to receiving in one’s mouth because of the indult required, are quick to champion the Tridentine Mass over the Novus Ordo Mass.

When all is said and done, many “traditionalists” need to realize that their many times liturgically abusive views are every bit as grave as those on the far left.
 
Some seem to forget that as great as the Novus Ordo mass is (only is the priest is not doing his own thing), Pope Paul the VI DID cosult six protestant ministers to give him advice on HOW best to make an ecumenical type of Mass, that would not offend protestants, and hence: the Novus Ordo Mass. At first, the Novus Ordo contained much latin, and other purely CATHOLIC elements. But, as the years went by, mid-seventies, it was changed again. However, the Novus Ordo we see nowadays, full most of the time with all kinds of liturgical abuse, IS NOT what neither John XXIII, nor Pope Paul VI envisioned. Many priests began to celebrate Mass how THEY wanted, and not how the church demands they celebrate Mass. Some priests began to consecrate Enlish Muffins, Pizza, grape juice instead of the wine. So began clown Masses, charismatic masses, youth masses, jazz masses; and all BUT THE CATHOLIC MASS.
Code: 
     It is amazing how anyone would "love" the Lutheran liturgy, when it was born out of a heretic's vision(Luther).  More importantly, and what is never mentioned out of convenience, is the fact that in 1988 Pope John Paul II again permitted the Mass (how can something which was celebrated for nore than 500 years=Council of Trent Codified the Tridentine mass) in the Tridentine Rite to  be widely celebrated and he exhorted Bishops to permit the Mass in thier dioceses with the indult.  hence, we have (Papal approval=total) an order: The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter's which are dedicated (they have so many vocations they have to turn applicant down for lack of space= I don't see that in MOST seminaries here?) to celebrating the Tridentine Latin Mass.
Pope John Paul’s 1988 document lauding and approving once again the Tridentine Latin Mass is titled: Motu Propio Ecclesia Dei.
If anyone dislikes or hates the Tridentine Mass, I really cannot understand why they7 would call themselves catholic. After all a Mass which was always valid, and lauded by so many saints and Popes alike, CANNOT BE DESPISED, because it would be as if saying that all along in all those years the Church was celebrating a bad Mass, and therefore the only real Mass is the New Order Mass(Novus Ordo), that would be like the church contradicting itself, and it would amount to total rejection of the TRADITION beleif. Hence, It would seem as if the famous “sola scriptora” was right after all?:hmmm: NOT:rolleyes: . As catholics we have Scripture AND Tradition.
Many really need to inform themselves more, or maybe ATTEND a Tridentine Latin Mass (I go frequently, though I also go to the Novus Ordo. One sees so many young adults in the Tridentine Latin, no gum-chewing, no minnie skirts, no cell phones going off, no one giggling, and talking throughout the whole Mass, and above all: SO MUCH REVERENCE AND ADORATION TO CHRIST, NOT TO OTHER PEOPLE.
Ave Maria Gracia Plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tui in Mulieribus.:tiphat:
 
the “new apologists” are very loyal to the church in matters outside of faith and morals. I guess there is nothing wrong with this but the church makes mistakes. Nobody wants to be more catholic than the pope. if the pope said he loves the missal of 1962, i guarantee these people would be much more supportive of it.

I think the “new apologist” are always defending the catholic faith and upholding the authority of the church, that for them to be against the Novus Ordo mass would be hypocritical. They are trying to be as catholic as possible without admitting the church could make mistakes.

i also don’t like the term “attached” when it comes to describing people who prefer the traditional mass. It sounds like we have something wrong with us, like a legitimate but not ideal orientation.

this is a good thread
 
40.png
lepanto:
We constantly praise the Eastern Church (which I am all FOR!), we give kudos for our Jewish history (fine), we speak favorably of various protestant rites, we always look at the first or second century liturgies HOWEVER we are simply petrified at the Immemorial Mass of all time. We make fun of it. We never hesitate to put it down. Why?

“New” apologists whom I otherwise admire such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating appear to be embarassed by the Traditional Latin Mass. With some of these apologists if you mention the Old Mass they get all nervous, they get frustrated. It is like they HATE it and are embarassed by it. Why?

But bring up the Anglican so-called “Mass,” the Lutheran Rite, the various Eastern rites (which I DO think are wonderful) they LOVE it and get all giddy. However, mention the Mass of all times and they seem to despise it. I really don’t get it. Why?
Click to expand...
Beats me. I have rather carefully compared the texts of the 1962 Missale Romanum and the current Novus Ordo Missae. The former is a pretty nice service. The latter throws out some of the redundancies (the Confiteor of the old mass, e.g., is really tedious) and flourishes, then throws out even the superb bits, like Psalm 42 (why on earth would they have done that). But the NOM and the 1962 missal are both in Latin. I prefer the older service, but can bring myself to live with the newer. However, the translation into English is impossible! And the indigestible, hopeless pulp missalettes!! Anyway, my spleen is directed at the inept adaptation of the conciliar changes in the mass. There just was not enough care taken in the rush to change. The result is inevitable: myriads are left “behind” whilst those who are out in front of the headlights are lost. And the most radical changers are rabidly opposed to their older brethren’s needs. What a mess!
 
The result is inevitable: myriads are left “behind” whilst those who are out in front of the headlights are lost. And the most radical changers are rabidly opposed to their older brethren’s needs. What a mess!
Click to expand...
i agree with everything you said. if you strictly compare both missals in latin, they are pretty similar. but the way the novus ordo mass is celebrated now is way different. churches are built different, the rubics, music, … etc. it’s a paradigm shift. it’s a big mess. by the way, if you read exodus or maybe even leviticus, God gives really detailed rules on how to worship. has anyone used this as an argument for the traditional mass?
 
40.png
lepanto:
“New” apologists whom I otherwise admire such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating appear to be embarassed by the Traditional Latin Mass. With some of these apologists if you mention the Old Mass they get all nervous, they get frustrated. It is like they HATE it and are embarassed by it. Why?
Click to expand...
Put up or shut up, as they say:

Give us an exact quotation that shows that I am “embarrassed” by the old Mass or that I “get all nervous” or “frustrated” about it or even “HATE” it.

If you can’t give such a quotation, an abject apology will suffice.
 
40.png
deogratias:
My theory is that some are threatened by it - they don’t understand it and it’s mystery is too much a myster for them.

I was not aware that Karl Keating and Scott Hahn had a problem with the Tridentine Mass - maybe I am in the wrong forum:whistle:
Maybe its their age or maybe they are converts from protestantism and there is more similarity to the nom than the tlm
Click to expand...
Ditto, as with lepanto:

Give an exact quotation that shows I feel “threatened” by the old Mass or that shows I “don’t understand it and it’s [sic] mystery.”

Also demonstrate that I am too young to have known the old Mass when it was in general use and that I am a convert.
 
Karl, I should think that being ‘too young to know’ would be more of a compliment.😉

I have never heard you, or Scott Hahn for that matter, repudiate the rite of St. Pius V. I could not answer as to the allegations of either of you.

However, I have heard otherwise orthodox Catholics do that. For instance as seen on EWTN (I think on a ‘The World Over’ news clip, but I can’t remember for sure), when queried about the correction of the English in the translation of the Novus Ordo Missae, his eminence, Cardinal Arinze (sp?) was shown to say that with such changes there would now be no need for the traditionalists to ‘cling’ to the old mass.

With all due respect, the good cardinal ought to have consulted the prefect for the congregation of the clergy, Cardinal Hoyos on that before he said it. For, as Cardinal Hoyos has said the Rite of St. Pius V, such as the cardinal himself calls it, has a right of citizenship within the Roman, or Latin, Church. Further he refutes the false notion of the traditionalists being a bunch of ‘old folks’ who ‘cling’ to the past, by pointing to the large number of young, faithful families who celebrate the Mass in this valid manner! Oh, if more prelates and clerics were as wise and open as Cardianal Hoyos.

I suspect that these are the reasons some traditionalists see and correlate to the otherwise orthodox Catholics out in the public eye, though I can’t answer for the others you have challenged. All being said, however, I do not remember a time I have seen or heard either Karl or Scott Hahn repudiating the old order.

Your unworthy brother in Christ and by the Grace of God a future priest,

Donnchadh

P.S. AL Kresta, a noted Catholic apologist, and a convert, has to a very minor extent questioned the necessity, and ultimately the desire for, the old Mass on his own MB (have been there for five years now - since the Catholic Family Radio days). I wonder if lepanto may have you confused?
 
I am looking forward to this thread. Is Karl Keating, Scott Hahn and company embarassed, nervous and frightened or has their youthful exuberance left some with this mistaken impression? Maybe they are just too Catholic and trying too much to be obedient to the Holy Father?
 
40.png
Minimus:
Beats me. I have rather carefully compared the texts of the 1962 Missale Romanum and the current Novus Ordo Missae. The former is a pretty nice service. The latter throws out some of the redundancies (the Confiteor of the old mass, e.g., is really tedious) and flourishes, then throws out even the superb bits, like Psalm 42 (why on earth would they have done that). But the NOM and the 1962 missal are both in Latin. I prefer the older service, but can bring myself to live with the newer. However, the translation into English is impossible! And the indigestible, hopeless pulp missalettes!! Anyway, my spleen is directed at the inept adaptation of the conciliar changes in the mass. There just was not enough care taken in the rush to change. The result is inevitable: myriads are left “behind” whilst those who are out in front of the headlights are lost. And the most radical changers are rabidly opposed to their older brethren’s needs. What a mess!
Click to expand...
The Holy sacrifice of the Mass is never a “service.”
 
40.png
Flower_Charity:
the “new apologists” are very loyal to the church in matters outside of faith and morals. I guess there is nothing wrong with this but the church makes mistakes. Nobody wants to be more catholic than the pope. if the pope said he loves the missal of 1962, i guarantee these people would be much more supportive of it.

I think the “new apologist” are always defending the catholic faith and upholding the authority of the church, that for them to be against the Novus Ordo mass would be hypocritical. They are trying to be as catholic as possible without admitting the church could make mistakes.

i also don’t like the term “attached” when it comes to describing people who prefer the traditional mass. It sounds like we have something wrong with us, like a legitimate but not ideal orientation.

this is a good thread
Click to expand...
You illustrate a problem…

The idea that Masses conforming to the 1962 Missal are “more catholic.”

A common misunderstanding amongst “traditionalists.”
 
Karl - it was not I who said you have a problem and in fact I said,

"I** was not aware that Karl Keating and Scott Hahn had a problem with the Tridentine Mass - maybe I am in the wrong forum**:whistle:

I do not know you or Mr. Hahn - my comment about being in the wrong forum was a tongue in cheek response - sorry I worded that poorly

The next statement should have been separated from this as it did not pertain to you and Mr. Hahn in particular but again as to why some people have a problem with the TLM -

It was part of the response to the why in their question

“With some of these apologists if you mention the Old Mass they get all nervous, they get frustrated. It is like they HATE it and are embarassed by it. Why?”

“Maybe its their age or maybe they are converts from protestantism and there is more similarity to the nom than the tlm”

That statement should have been part of the rest of my post and not separated from this "My theory is that some are threatened by it - they don’t understand it and it’s mystery is too much a myster for them.

Others may fear it will return and they will lose the current rite they may have grown up in and like (so they should commisurate with those who lost this rite)

Still others think when we praise the Tridentine Rite we are saying there is something wrong with the current Rite (some are saying that but they should be aware that a condition of having the indult Mass is acceptance of the N.O. Mass as valid)"

I admit to doing a poor job on posting my response and apologize for the confusion and should have put the statement which in bold at the end of the other “stuff” and understand how it looked that I was making reference to you and Mr. Hahn in particular but I was not.

.
 
40.png
Minimus:
Beats me. I have rather carefully compared the texts of the 1962 Missale Romanum and the current Novus Ordo Missae. The former is a pretty nice service. The latter throws out some of the redundancies (the Confiteor of the old mass, e.g., is really tedious) and flourishes, then throws out even the superb bits, like Psalm 42 (why on earth would they have done that). But the NOM and the 1962 missal are both in Latin. I prefer the older service, but can bring myself to live with the newer. However, the translation into English is impossible! And the indigestible, hopeless pulp missalettes!! Anyway, my spleen is directed at the inept adaptation of the conciliar changes in the mass. There just was not enough care taken in the rush to change. The result is inevitable: myriads are left “behind” whilst those who are out in front of the headlights are lost. And the most radical changers are rabidly opposed to their older brethren’s needs. What a mess!
Click to expand...

  1. *]The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a “service.”
    *]The Confiteor of the Old Mass may be tedious, but it beseeched the Blessed Virgin, Sts. Michael, Peter and Paul and all the Saints to pray for sinners. The Novus Ordo Confiteor includes the Blessed Virgin and all the Saints. How sad that no other Saints are mentioned. They seem to have been deleted or made “optional” in other parts of the Mass as well. That’s very Protestant.
    *]The Last Gospel (the beginning of the Gospel of John) of the Old Mass seems to me to embody one of the tenets of Vatican II - that we should preach the Gospel. It would be a reminder to all just prior to leaving the Church building after Mass that they are indeed charged to do that in their daily lives.
 
The Holy sacrifice of the Mass is never a “service”

In “The City of God,” St. Augustine refers to it as just that -

Book X, Chapter 1: "There is, then, an attitude which is called in Greek latreia and is translated by the Latin servitus, meaning the service of the worship of God: or it may be called threskeia in Greek, but in Lation religio, the religion which “binds us to God:” of the Greeks may call it theosebeia, whioch, in default of one equivalent word we may call “worship of God.” What is expressed by those words is the worship we hold to be due only to him who is the true God, who transforms his worshippers into gods.
 
Charlemagne said:

  1. *]The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a “service.”
    *]The Confiteor of the Old Mass may be tedious, but it beseeched the Blessed Virgin, Sts. Michael, Peter and Paul and all the Saints to pray for sinners. The Novus Ordo Confiteor includes the Blessed Virgin and all the Saints. How sad that no other Saints are mentioned. They seem to have been deleted or made “optional” in other parts of the Mass as well. That’s very Protestant.
    *]The Last Gospel (the beginning of the Gospel of John) of the Old Mass seems to me to embody one of the tenets of Vatican II - that we should preach the Gospel. It would be a reminder to all just prior to leaving the Church building after Mass that they are indeed charged to do that in their daily lives.
Click to expand...


  1. I do apologize. By “service” I mean the form of the mass, not its substance (this was a critique of form only). The old confiteor invoked Mary and the saints twice; the NOM confiteor does so only once, which is why I feel the former tedious; however, the explicit inclusion of Ss. Peter and Paul and St. Michael is certainly a worthy thing. Once. The repetition, as I recall, was not an ancient tradition. Last, it was very a propos to have the last gospel as a parting reminder of the glory of our faith before leaving mass. Can’t deny it. Just as Psalm 42 was a wonderful start.
 
I doubt that Scott Hahn would have a problem with the Tridentine Mass–It seems that it, even more than the N.O. Mass supports his view that the Mass reveals the meaning of the Book of the Apocalypse
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top