The Not-so-new liturgical movement

  • Thread starter Thread starter FrJohn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am simply trying to understand why you posted this… I have seen some of NLM’s postings, and they seem well-informed and gracious… do you think they are trying to force the Tridentine mass down people’s throats, or…
 
Yes, I do; though very graciously and non-polemically. I remember when, I think I’m getting this right, Cardinal Sarah, as Prefect of the Congregation on the Liturgy, wanted Priests facing the altar, their back to the people, implemented by the beginning of the new Liturgical Year. I think that was in 2015 or 2016.
 
how can something be graciously and nonpolemically shoved down one’s throat? The Church says that both the EF and the NO are valid and good Masses, both working to the same end. Why does it matter if one likes the NO over the EF or vice versa?
 
Most people who present themselves as reformers are nice, very nice, about what they are proposing. I am reminded of what C. S. Lewis said about “do-gooders.” They are of all people the most insufferable. I forget where he said that. As I said, the EFers just aren’t that nice about their proposals. I have been soundly lambasted as heretical and retrograde; and they try very hard to seem to be taking the high road.
 
FrJohn said:
Most people who present themselves as reformers are nice, very nice, about what they are proposing
Click to expand...
The “reformers” who forced the New Mass on the Latin Church in the 60s and 70s sure weren’t “very nice” about it. They were ruthless in their suppression of the Traditional Mass.
 
I don’t think it was mandated. Anyway, I remember when my father told me that Mass used to be in Latin and the priest faced the other way. At the time, I didn’t get why mass would be in Latin, but the priest facing the same way as the rest of us made a lot more sense to me (and I was a kid at the time!). This little cartoon sums it up:
 
Many were driven away by this I’ve heard from old timers I have talked to (including those who fell away) to try and get a grasp on what those times were like. We wonder why the pews emptied shortly thereafter…
 
Last edited:
You sound a bit bitter about the fact that some people like the TLM and would like to see it more wiespread.
 
Maybe I should write a book, or an article/essay, and get rid of what bitterness I have lurking in the shadows of my soul.
 
Well, Genesis315, there were abuses in the parishes, a lot of silliness; well, not a lot, but enough to get noticed and to gin up more than a little rancor among those so inclined. I remember that my Dad was hurt when they took out the communion rail because, he said, “Some of us pain a lot of money for that.” It does usually come down to money; the bottom line is the bottom line for a reason. He, my Dad, was easily persuaded that the “New Mass,” was a satanic piece of heresy forced upon a gullible faithful, and he ended his day on this earth going only to a Tridentine Mass. He lived in northern Idaho and found one in Post Falls.
 
Last edited:
Well…what right had a few priests with an agenda to remove and in some cases destroy items from the sanctuary that were paid for by parishoners.

While your dad might have been wrong about the new mass being from Satan. I can understand why he kept on going to Latin Mass.
 
Genesis315 said:
I don’t think it was mandated. Anyway, I remember when my father told me that Mass used to be in Latin and the priest faced the other way. At the time, I didn’t get why mass would be in Latin, but the priest facing the same way as the rest of us made a lot more sense to me (and I was a kid at the time!). This little cartoon sums it up:
Click to expand...
I’m going to borrow this cartoon and use it for my friends/family. Thank you 😎
 
R_H_Benson: Everyone already knows that. I think the abuses and “the ruthlessness” were overblown; i.e., exaggerated by the aggrieved. Most liturgical debate, as noted elsewhere in these forums, rests on anecdotal evidence, so here’s mine: In our little country parish, the pastor and his associate had a heck of a time implementing the “reforms.” Not because they felt imposed upon, but because they were shy country people. I ran into our last associate a few years ago and he recounted how he had to gently persuade the men that they could come into the sanctuary to be lectors. They, instead of being lectors, began as commentators using a microphone in the front pew. There couldn’t have been found a kinder priest in our Diocese. He ended his days working with the mentally ill in a hospital. I never experience a draconian suppression. One day as we were leaving the church after Mass, my Dad asked me, about the “New Mass,” “Did you like that?” I replied, “Yeah, Dad I did.” “Well I didn’t.” he said, and off he went to peruse the pages of “The Wanderer.” Now there was a bitter, ruthless rag for you.
 
Yes, I have heard similar things. At my grandparents’ parish, the priest did what you describe as well as plastered over some of the stained glass windows. Other windows literally went out in the trash (they were “rescued” by a local funeral home and are still there). Funny thing, in the last decade or so , what was plastered over has been uncovered and a local artist volunteered his services to restore the portraits of the evangelists that were painted over.

I really appreciate hearing from people, especially priests, who have lived with both rites. It’s easy for me to have an idealized view of the past since I grew up just after the reforms, but I think a lot of the “silliness” and abuses were reactions to other problems that were present during the “good old traditional times” so to speak.

I think you make a good point that we shouldn’t have an “us-vs-them” mentality in the liturgy argument and advocates of the older rite do no one any favors by accusing others of ill will.
 
Last edited:
You can’t be “ruthless” in suppressing something if you are the ecclesial authority in charge. The Holy See has every right to determine what does or doesn’t go on. It did it at Trent and it’s allowed to do it at Vatican II, and it’s allowed to do it again after that if it deems it appropriate. It doesn’t have to explain or justify itself. It simply does so for pastoral reasons, not because it is obliged to do so. Laity, religious, and clergy have zero right or entitlement to act contrary.

Acting in disobedience is a mortal sin if it is grave in matter and done with full knowledge and consent. It incurs an eternal penalty.
 
Last edited:
Hey Cthompson: good to hear from you. I thought that you like the TLM. I can see how people would like it because of the increased reverence. For myself, I struggle with reference, I suppose most of us do, but I’ve been told that I’m a reverent priest after Mass. What I found the TLM good for, besides reverence, when I was a kid, was day dreaming. I enjoyed Mass so much because daydreaming boy that I was, I also experienced the presence of God, before whom, I was also reverent; it was the easiest thing to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top