TLM and Ordinary Form

[archangel04]

Also, bad hymns are not inherent in the N.O. Good hymns aren’t inherent in the TLM.

It just happens to be the case that TLM folks often have better taste.

Imagine this for a moment.

In a typical diocese there were 1,000 TLM’s celebrated every week, and just one N.O.

We would probably have a reversal in cirmcumstance. The TLM’s would be dry in their celebration, while that single N.O. would be beautiful and reverently celebrated beause it would have a dedicated community and following.

I’ll say it again: the TLM is not inherently more reverent than the N.O. It’s only incidentally so because of the way that it is typically celebrated, which I would argue is largely due to the concentration of support in a TLM community.

I disagree with this post. The TLM naturally is far more reverent than the OF. It’s so because of the years it’s had to organically grow. The rubrics of the TLM does not allow for other practices to creep into the Mass. All is done accordingly, unlike the OF, you can have many reverent OF, but it’s really up to the celebrant how reverent is done. This is because the rubrics is not very detailed and allows for other things to creep in. Perhaps after some more decades, this issue with the OF will be resolved, but until then you are right the Mass is the mass, but when it comes to reverence, trying to compare the OF with EF is like comparing a diamond with cubic zirconia when it comes to reverence.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ll say it again: the TLM is not inherently more reverent than the N.O.

No, but there definitely is more discipline in the TLM and among the people who attend them. (for now anyway ) Discipline is important to a lot of people.

 

[Bbigam]

I think I can concede your point regarding the hymns. As far as the level of reverence between the two, In my experience attending both forms, the OF has not come close to the EF in producing an atmosphere of reverence, even though some of the OF priests were very reverent. The OF just does not stack up to the EF in the reverential realm.

Okay, I could go with you on the atmosphere of reverence. I like the OF, but I wish at least the rubrics would be tightened up a lot. I just wanted to point out that the atmosphere of reverence and internal attitude of reverence are not the same thing - although it’s by far the best to have both!

No, but there definitely is more discipline in the TLM and among the people who attend them. (for now anyway ) Discipline is important to a lot of people.

Yes, for the most part this is very true! There are parishes with the OF that are just as reverent and disciplined as those with the EF… but that’s sadly not the norm or even very common at all.

 

[Seamus_L]

If the TLM were mandated everywhere tomorrow, it would not solve the Church’s many problems. On the other hand, I could think of several parishes in the Archdiocese where I live, where I’m quite certain the TLM would be well received. I think a gradual return to the TLM is what we need, but unfortunately, while things have improved in the last 10 years, we still have something like less than 50 parishes in the US, where the TLM is offered daily. That need’s to change.

 

[OraLabora]

I completely reject (respectfully, of course), your entire post. Bad hymns are inherent in the NO, and good hymns are inherent in the TLM. I reject your premise that 1000 TLM’s would be dry, while the NO would be beautiful and reverently celebrated. The TLM is inherently more reverent than the NO, whether supported by a TLM community, or not.
You say you are a big fan of both forms, but you seem to betray a serious bias (even a bigotry) against the TLM.

Well, not quite. The selection of music for the TLM is indeed inherently better, and BTW they are not hymns. They are Gregorian antiphons taken from the propers. Which in fact is considered the best form in the OF as well.

But just because the music is taken from the propers… and is in Gregorian chant, it does not automatically follow that it will be well sung.

If the TLM was standard fare for the Mass in our parishes, I would bet five bucks there would be a ton of bad parish choirs mangling Gregorian chant, and you might hear one or two good Masses at larger parishes, in cathedrals or basilicas, etc., but the rest would be so-so, with a lot of badly sung “Mass of the Angels” everywhere every Sunday, because the choirs can’t do much else.

Which I suspect was exactly the case in our parishes before the reforms.

There is nothing inherently reverent to the TLM just because good music is used and the rubrics are tighter; good music badly sung is not reverent. On the other hand, good music, well sung (especially if following the propers in Gregorian chant), is still allowed at the OF Mass, and does make it reverent, something I am exposed to in fact every Sunday at Benedictine abbey.

The focus should be on how we celebrate the Mass, not which form is better than the other (both are approved).

 

[Lycorth]

The focus should be on how we celebrate the Mass, not which form is better than the other (both are approved).

That’s why so many people want the TLM to be more available, even exclusively so. Stricter rubrics do make for a more reverent Mass the same as stricter safety standards make for a more injury-free workplace.

 

[ProVobis]

There are parishes with the OF that are just as reverent and disciplined as those with the EF.

But you’re going to have to cut a lot of options and EPs to be more disciplined. Options by the fact that they are options compromise discipline.

Remember too, though, there are growing communities (or at least they’re supposed to be) with both the OF and EF celebrated there. So perhaps here is a chance where the EF (traditional) disciplines can be applied to the OF.

 

[Bbigam]

But you’re going to have to cut a lot of options and EPs to be more disciplined. Options by the fact that they are options compromise discipline.

Remember too, though, there are growing communities (or at least they’re supposed to be) with both the OF and EF celebrated there. So perhaps here is a chance where the EF (traditional) disciplines can be applied to the OF.

I very much agree with you here! There is much that I love about the OF, including some things I like better about the OF than the EF. But I do think there are too many options and that the rubrics need to be tightened up a lot. The “ideal” Mass for me would probably be somewhere between the two forms. For example - Readings in the vernacular facing the people at the ambo - Eucharistic Prayer the Roman Canon ad orientem at a high altar with a tabernacle, said out loud in Latin or vernacular, Communion received on the tongue while kneeling at a communion rail. At least something of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar restored - Confiteor the only option for penitential act, but the dismissal actually being the last words of the Mass. And doing away with the pesky OF rubric that says don’t genuflect to the tabernacle during Mass!

 

[floresco]

The “ideal” Mass for me would probably be somewhere between the two forms. For example - Readings in the vernacular facing the people at the ambo - Eucharistic Prayer the Roman Canon ad orientem at a high altar with a tabernacle, said out loud in Latin or vernacular, Communion received on the tongue while kneeling at a communion rail. At least something of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar restored - Confiteor the only option for penitential act, but the dismissal actually being the last words of the Mass. And doing away with the pesky OF rubric that says don’t genuflect to the tabernacle during Mass!

I would appreciate a Mass like this, especially if it included the Offertory prayers of the TLM that clearly state that a propitiatory sacrifice is taking place. (I am troubled by the theological ambiguity of the OF.) I think something like what you describe is what the Council Fathers had in mind with Sacrosanctum Concilium.

 

[OraLabora]

That’s why so many people want the TLM to be more available, even exclusively so. Stricter rubrics do make for a more reverent Mass the same as stricter safety standards make for a more injury-free workplace.

If they’re followed.

There’s no doubt the OF would be more reverent if the rubrics, such as they are, were followed.

For some reason, those responsible for the OF Mass seem to think that the rubrics are mere suggestions. I suspect the only reason it isn’t the same for the EF, is that those seeking out the EF are dedicated Catholics trying to escape the abuses, and the priests saying the EF Masses are catering to these faithful, of which they no doubt are also a part of.

I also think that in the days when what we call the EF Mass today was the norm, bishops were also more disciplined at keeping… discipline. I’ve heard many stories about legendary bishops making the rounds of their parishes and striking fear in his priests that he should find them erring in any way.

Stricter rubrics do need enforcement. You can say a speed limit of 55 instead of 75 is “stricter”, but unless it is backed up with enforcement, it’s meaningless. So far on the small number of EF Masses that exist, I suspect enthusiasm is fueling compliance more than anything else.

Personally I wish we’d only have one Mass, as others have alluded to, in Latin, but with readings and the homily in the local vernacular, and the music taken from the Propers and Kyriale (from the Graduale Romanum) which still exists, and the rubrics and the rest taken from the best that both forms have to offer. Also the modern lectionary and calendar could be used.

I think having two forms of the Mass is divisive and pits faithful against faithful. If we had to go back entirely to the TLM to solve the issue, I could certainly live with that.

 

[Student09]

For some reason, those responsible for the OF Mass seem to think that the rubrics are mere suggestions. I suspect the only reason it isn’t the same for the EF, is that those seeking out the EF are dedicated Catholics trying to escape the abuses, and the priests saying the EF Masses are catering to these faithful, of which they no doubt are also a part of.

I don’t know. It’s probably more difficult - though I suppose not impossible - to spontaneously reinvent parts of the Mass when you have to do it in Latin, than it is when you can do it in English.

I’ve also seen it suggested that the many options in the OF - like multiple penitential rites for the priest to choose from (now really, should the Confiteor be optional???) - have, unintentionally, encouraged the idea that there is room for creativity in the Mass. I think that argument has a lot of weight. Of course, options are not inherent in the OF, but now all these priests are in the habit of having choices in how they say the Mass. I don’t know, it’s just what I’ve heard, but it does seem to make sense.

Personally I wish we’d only have one Mass, as others have alluded to, in Latin, but with readings and the homily in the local vernacular, and the music taken from the Propers and Kyriale (from the Graduale Romanum) which still exists, and the rubrics and the rest taken from the best that both forms have to offer. Also the modern lectionary and calendar could be used.

I think having two forms of the Mass is divisive and pits faithful against faithful. If we had to go back entirely to the TLM to solve the issue, I could certainly live with that.

Agreed.

 

[OraLabora]

I don’t know. It’s probably more difficult - though I suppose not impossible - to spontaneously reinvent parts of the Mass when you have to do it in Latin, than it is when you can do it in English.

The rubrics are about more than the language though. The rubrics even contain elaborate instructions on how to cense the altar, etc. I bet it would be pretty easy to speed through a lot of it and most faithful, other than the CAF Liturgy Police, would not notice

Also I have heard that it was pretty easy for priests to destroy the “spirit” of the rubrics by speeding through a lot of the Mass in garbled Latin that nobody could hear or understand. So while the “letter” of the rubrics were adhered to, proper reverence for the Mass was not shown.

Where there are rules, there are people to break or bend them, alas! I’m too skeptical, and have been around too long, to believe that if every Mass was a TLM, each one would be perfect…

 

[ProVobis]

So while the “letter” of the rubrics were adhered to, proper reverence for the Mass was not shown.

How so? Because you say so?

 

[OraLabora]

How so? Because you say so?

Because I know people old enough to remember being at bad Latin Masses in the pre-conciliar era. Any notion that people were more “perfect” before Vatican II is ludicrous and has no foundation in the reality of a fallen mankind.

 

[ProVobis]

Because I know people old enough to remember being at bad Latin Masses in the pre-conciliar era. Any notion that people were more “perfect” before Vatican II is ludicrous and has no foundation in the reality of a fallen mankind.

I served a lot of Masses in the pre-conciliar era and I have some war stories to share too. But the speed of the Mass was certainly not the top of the list then. If anything, the so-called “rush” made us more efficient servers as our daily Masses were a half-hour apart and sometimes we had to serve at the side altars for visiting priests as well. People was not perfect as you say, but at least we had some attempts at discipline. Utmost reverence was a given for the rubrics of the TLM.

 

[OraLabora]

I served a lot of Masses in the pre-conciliar era and I have some war stories to share too. But the speed of the Mass was certainly not the top of the list then. If anything, the so-called “rush” made us more efficient servers as our daily Masses were a half-hour apart and sometimes we had to serve at the side altars for visiting priests as well. People was not perfect as you say, but at least we had some attempts at discipline. Utmost reverence was a given for the rubrics of the TLM.

What I find puzzling is that with the OF, we can’t seem to follow the rubrics and liturgical norms. Yet when we do the OF can be beautiful and reverent, I have seen plenty of evidence of that.

I therefore suspect the problem is one of attitude, not the form of the Mass itself or the rubrics. VII, or worse the “spirit of VII” has somehow resulted in an erosion of discipline and dare I say respect that extends far beyond the Mass itself. Look at all the people around who are ready to diss Church teaching and who pay scant respect to the clergy, especially the Holy Father. I don’t think that it was the intent of VII, but it sure happened

And I’m not so sure we can put the genie back into the bottle. Vatican III anyone?

 

[Gregorianman]

Because I know people old enough to remember being at bad Latin Masses in the pre-conciliar era. Any notion that people were more “perfect” before Vatican II is ludicrous and has no foundation in the reality of a fallen mankind.

“Pre-conciliar era”. Was that the time of those Dark Ages, before the Enlightenment of V-2 came along and corrected all the mistakes that the human person jesus christ made when he built that pesky old catholic church? Careful, OL, that sounded like a Modernist slip-up.
Since right after World War II, I have attended the Latin Mass. Sometimes, I heard some pretty bad sermons, but I never attended a “bad Latin Mass”.

 

[Student09]

Vatican III anyone?

Nooooooooooooooooo!!!

 

[malphono]

What I find puzzling is that with the OF, we can’t seem to follow the rubrics and liturgical norms.

IMO, it’s not all that puzzling. As I’ve said in other threads in this forum, one major problem I find are the various “options” in the OF (and I daresay the most insidious of them is versus populum). A second major issue is the matter of the loosey-goosey rubrics. A third is the wide berth given to the so-called national episcopal conferences. Taken all together, and again IMO, the question might better be “what liturgical norms?”

Yet when we do the OF can be beautiful and reverent, I have seen plenty of evidence of that.

Yes, I suppose that’s true, but no matter how reverent, the focus of the OF, even when done in Latin will full ceremony and adherence to what rubrics there are, is very different than that of the EF. It seems to me the crux of that lies in the watered-down texts.

And I’m not so sure we can put the genie back into the bottle. Vatican III anyone?

I’m not sure either, but I think the genie can, and hopefully, will be re-bottled once and for all. The last thing we need is yet another “pastoral council.” One was more than enough.

 

[JustaServant]

Some TLM proponents argue that the transition to the OF coincided with confusion and ultimately decline in the Church. Some argue that if we brought back the TLM in full force, the Church would experience a renewal.

How does this square with the idea that other Catholic Rites never adopted a new form of liturgy, and yet have experienced their own declines in church attendence and vigor. Could the same be said for the Orthodox?

p.s. I’m a big fan of BOTH the TLM and the OF, and I don’t necessarily prefer either.

Well, those saying if we brought back the TLM in full force, the Church would experience a renewal would probably also say if we returned prayer to public schools we would be a christian nation again. Its a little more complicated than that.
The OF can be done just as reverantly as the EF. If we pretend the Sacrifice of the Mass is of no importance going through the motions" without any heart attention) then why are we surprised that many parishes are weak in teaching and outreach?
The truth is, Catholics need to be proud again of being Catholic, devoted to their faith, and then we will see renewal.