The TLM and emotions

[Sarpedon]

One of the main arguments I hear to the TLM mass is that it “feels” more reverent. Isn’t this an emotion? If so, wouldn’t all the arguments against emotional happy-clappy stuff also apply to the “reverent” aspect of the TLM? Both seem to appeal to emotions to justify their case.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

One of the main arguments I hear to the TLM mass is that it “feels” more reverent. Isn’t this an emotion? If so, wouldn’t all the arguments against emotional happy-clappy stuff also apply to the “reverent” aspect of the TLM? Both seem to appeal to emotions to justify their case.

The wording that always struck a sour cord with me is ‘TLM MAKES me feel more reverent’.

I always thought reverence is what we BRING in ourselves.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

One of the main arguments I hear to the TLM mass is that it “feels” more reverent. Isn’t this an emotion? If so, wouldn’t all the arguments against emotional happy-clappy stuff also apply to the “reverent” aspect of the TLM? Both seem to appeal to emotions to justify their case.

While certain people may use the word “feels” or “felt” in regards to attending the TLM, I don’t know of anyone who is actually making an argument for the TLM who bases it on that type of subjectivity. Rather, the argument will more likely be that the TLM “is” more reverent (sacred).

In the article found below in my signature line, Dietrich von Hildebrand speaks extensively of reverence, and the reverent vs. the irreverent man. Here is one snippet:

“The basic error of most of the innovations is to imagine that the new liturgy brings the holy sacrifice of the mass nearer to the faithful, that shorn of its old rituals the mass now enters into the substance of our lives. For the question is whether we better meet Christ in the mass by soaring up to Him, or by dragging Him down into our own pedestrian, workaday world. The innovators would replace holy intimacy with Christ by an unbecoming familiarity. The new liturgy actually threatens to frustrate the confrontation with Christ, for it discourages reverence in the face of mystery, precludes awe, and all but extinguishes a sense of sacredness. What really matters, surely, is not whether the faithful feel at home at mass, but whether they are drawn out of their ordinary lives into the world of Christ-whether their attitude is the response of ultimate reverence: whether they are imbued with the reality of Christ.”

latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

Regardless of whether one agrees with von Hildebrand or not, his arguments (and most anyone who argues seriously for the TLM) are not based on emotion.

 

[jabelltulsa]

One of the main arguments I hear to the TLM mass is that it “feels” more reverent. Isn’t this an emotion? If so, wouldn’t all the arguments against emotional happy-clappy stuff also apply to the “reverent” aspect of the TLM? Both seem to appeal to emotions to justify their case.

I don’t think people are saying “feel” in the way that you take it. I will put forth that when I say, “TLM feels more reverent”, I mean I see more reverence being paid to the Sacrament and to God Himself.

For me, the Novous Ordo mass is like saying, “Hey, Jesus” and extending my hand for a handshake, and TLM is saying, “Hail, Sir”, while kneeling

I am a VERY informal person. I find myself to be very relaxed and I act very familiar with my friends and family. However, when it comes to God, I NEVER want to be informal. For me, only the highest form of reverence will do for Him in my life. Thank God I have always had TLM to go to. For the few years I was away from it, I truly missed it.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

If when we see Jesus we see the Father - and not alot in Tradition makes Jesus out to be particularly formal - why think the Father is?

God desires our love (with obedience etc in tow) but does he, through Jesus, tell us about formality with God?

 

[universalindult]

The new mass is a *“banal, fabricated, on-the-spot product.” *

That sounds awfully emotional.

(It was said by Cardinal Ratzinger.)

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

The new mass is a *“banal, fabricated, on-the-spot product.” *

That sounds awfully emotional.

(It was said by Cardinal Ratzinger.)

Have to wonder if he could kick himself for some of the comments he made.

 

[universalindult]

Have to wonder if he could kick himself for some of the comments he made.

Summorum Pontificum would seem to indicate that he not only still believes what he said then about banal and fabricated liturgies, but is also willing to correct the extremes of the post-VII era.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

If when we see Jesus we see the Father - and not alot in Tradition makes Jesus out to be particularly formal - why think the Father is?

God desires our love (with obedience etc in tow) but does he, through Jesus, tell us about formality with God?

If we start with the OT as revealing God, we know just from that that God can be quite formal when it comes to liturgical practices. After all, He was quite specific in how he wanted the tabernacle made, what the priests were to wear, and how they were to conduct the sacrifices. And if a priest deviated from these details, it was not looked upon as an insignificant thing by God.

Further, none of us were at the last Supper, but from what I understand it was based on Jewish liturgical practices. And though Jesus may have altered things He still seemed to respect liturgical practice.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

If we start with the OT as revealing God, we know just from that that God can be quite formal when it comes to liturgical practices. After all, He was quite specific in how he wanted the tabernacle made, what the priests were to wear, and how they were to conduct the sacrifices. And if a priest deviated from these details, it was not looked upon as an insignificant thing by God.

Further, none of us were at the last Supper, but from what I understand it was based on Jewish liturgical practices. And though Jesus may have altered things He still seemed to respect liturgical practice.

The over all picture of Jesus, per the Gospels, is not formal and it is he who shows us the face of God.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The over all picture of Jesus, per the Gospels, is not formal and it is he who shows us the face of God.

The OT also shows us God and Jesus’ picture is not going to contradict that. Further, the gospels show Jesus’ entire life. If one were to take a priest who only celebrated the TLM and showed not only his liturgical practice, but everything he did such as teaching, meeting people, talking, one might also conclude that this priest was not particularly formal either. But where Jesus is shown interacting with liturgical practice we do not find Him being particularly informal (although the sketch is scant). So, for instance, when Jesus reads from the scripture in the synagogue He sticks to the appropriate way and manner in which scripture was read in the synagogue, He doesn’t just wing it.

 

[Sarpedon]

Thank you all for your responses. I have one more question: how do you all “see” (as opposed to “feel”) more reverence in the TLM? What’s been said about the TLM actually being more reverent verses feeling more reverent makes sense, but how can we see reverence outside of our emotions?

 

[BenFischer]

Thank you all for your responses. I have one more question: how do you all “see” (as opposed to “feel”) more reverence in the TLM? What’s been said about the TLM actually being more reverent verses feeling more reverent makes sense, but how can we see reverence outside of our emotions?

I’ll say at the start that these perceptions are based on what I read in my missal. I don’t know Latin, so I have to go by what I have in my book. I don’t have a similar missal for the NO mass, so I can’t say for sure these points aren’t there.

1. In the TLM Mass, the 1st thing the Priest does, after the Apereges (which technically is before the Mass) is pray the confiteor along with the servers. The intent is to purify himself before he can approach the altar. The commentary in the Angelus Missal is explicit “the Priest longs to approach the altar…”. In the NO Mass, the 1st thing the Priest does is walk around the back of the altar and kiss it. That’s a sign of reverence, but the TLM seems more reverent if the Priest has to seek forgiveness before he approaches.
2. With the Priest ad orientum, the phrase “Pray my brothers that this sacrifice may be acceptable…” has a new meaning because the Priest turns to face the congregation before saying it. Again, in the Missal, the commentary is strong that the Priest, feeling unworthy, seeks support from the congregation. By turning away from the altar to face the congregation, that appeal is evident. In the NO, the same prayer is said, but the Priest is already facing the congregation, so it’s not as obvious what the purpose is.
3. During the Canon, the Priest makes many, many signs of the cross in many ways. With his hands, with the paten, with the host and on and on. These are all symbolic. At one point he makes 5 signs of the cross representing the 5 wounds of Jesus. That’s a pretty poignant reminder of the sacrifice. (there are other examples as well) There are nowhere near that many gestures in the NO, which probably is part of the reason why I would say the sacrificial aspect is reduces in the NO vs the TLM.

There are other things like that, but those are the major ones. I can think of.

The other comments don’t apply to low masses, but all the smells and bells add to a sense of reverence. I’d note that when I go to a big NO mass at the cathedral, like the Chrism Mass, they have all the incense and extra stuff. So getting that during a weekly High Mass (Missa Cantanta where I am, I think) adds a lot.

The final comment is that, in general, the TLMs that I’ve seen in person and on EWTN, etc have longer sermons that touch on more of the nitty-gritty aspects of the faith. Things like Prayer, Sin, Penance. They seem more catechetical than the typical NO sermons, that typically revolve around things like Love and Forgiveness. I don’t know why that is. I’ve certainly heard some tub-thumping sermons at NO masses, but not as often as at the TLM masses.

That being said, the NO masses I attend are fine, but there definitely is a different character to the TLM masses.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

The OT also shows us God and Jesus’ picture is not going to contradict that. Further, the gospels show Jesus’ entire life. If one were to take a priest who only celebrated the TLM and showed not only his liturgical practice, but everything he did such as teaching, meeting people, talking, one might also conclude that this priest was not particularly formal either. But where Jesus is shown interacting with liturgical practice we do not find Him being particularly informal (although the sketch is scant). So, for instance, when Jesus reads from the scripture in the synagogue He sticks to the appropriate way and manner in which scripture was read in the synagogue, He doesn’t just wing it.

Again - to see Jesus is to see the face of God.

This is very different than the way things were when God first chose the Jews.

Add to that we are not Jews.

 

[universalindult]

Add to that we are not Jews.

Is the Universal Church the New Israel?

 

[jfallaw]

Thank you all for your responses. I have one more question: how do you all “see” (as opposed to “feel”) more reverence in the TLM? What’s been said about the TLM actually being more reverent verses feeling more reverent makes sense, but how can we see reverence outside of our emotions?

It’s strange for those of us who only know the NO mass, to try to explain how we ‘feel’ at a TLM mass. I only went to TLM masses when I was a youngster, ten years old, tops. I would visit Grampaw in the summers and he went to a TLM church, until every church in El Paso, it seems, switched to the NO. All I know is that every time I went, I seemed to ‘feel’ the presence of God more than I ever did or do at a NO mass; even at that age I knew there was something significantly different, and it wasn’t just that they were singing instead of talking, and in a weird language at that. It’s not that I felt more reverent or closer to Him, but that He seemed closer to me and everyone else at the mass. IDK it’s hard to explain. It has to do with feelings, but not in the way alot of people seem to think, I think. Oh sorry about my language on another post, people. I confess my anger and repent.

 

[Sarpedon]

I’ll be the first to admit that the TLM (with chant) can feel very reverent and mysterious. I mean, there’s chant, lots of candles, an ancient language being used, etc. However, I’m not sure that I can say that because of this feeling the TLM is superior to the NO, because a similar emotional experience could be had at a more modern festival of praise or NO mass. Also, I don’t really want to base my judgements on the mass on my own subjective feelings.

 

[jabelltulsa]

If when we see Jesus we see the Father - and not alot in Tradition makes Jesus out to be particularly formal - why think the Father is?

God desires our love (with obedience etc in tow) but does he, through Jesus, tell us about formality with God?

What is not formal about being a King, much less the King of Kings.

What respect and reverence and ritual would we give, say, King David, or Moses, or Peter, or Mary, or the Saints? What honor and reverence and ritual to we offer to noble people on Earth?

What, now, will we do for Christ?

When I speak to God, I usually do so in a free flowing conversation; more like an internal thought. It, you could say, is informal. However, when I go to Mass, I show respect to the Blessed Sacrament, and I bow, kneel, and lower my head in His Presence.

The Mass is the highest form of reverence we can offer to Christ. It is the most special prayer, and it is our Spiritual Food. We should protect it as best we can. I believe the NO Mass allows for too much abuse, and the results can be seen in the world today.

Have to wonder if he could kick himself for some of the comments he made.

This seems a bit irreverent, now that we are on the subject.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Thank you all for your responses. I have one more question: how do you all “see” (as opposed to “feel”) more reverence in the TLM? What’s been said about the TLM actually being more reverent verses feeling more reverent makes sense, but how can we see reverence outside of our emotions?

BenFisher did a good comparison above. I also wanted to add a link to a comparison between the TLM and the Novus Ordo missals:

latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

And of course along with the TLM there was and is the high altar (which does not look like a table) and the art and architecture which goes along so readily with that liturgy.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Again - to see Jesus is to see the face of God.

This is very different than the way things were when God first chose the Jews.

Add to that we are not Jews.

And you are projecting an informality on Jesus in regards to liturgical practices when you weren’t there. And/or deducing it from His other activities (which don’t require formality anyway). Jesus’ sacrifice and the Mass superceded the Jewish sacrifices, but He certainly did not rail against the Jews for being too formal (or obedient) liturgically. Any instructions which have come from God regarding liturgy or architecture have been completely formal.

Again, the OT also reveals God and the nature of God did not change when Jesus was incarnated.