TLM At the National Shrine

[JReducation]

Altars are supposed to have altar stones. Altar stones contain relics of saints. A table at a Novus Ordo Mass does not have an altar stone. Not to mention at a Novus Ordo Mass it’s just sitting in the very middle and isn’t up against a wall like it’s supposed to be. And when you have the lay people up there and the priest facing the people more you know it resembles a meal more than anything. You can certainly tell the difference.

Wait a minute . . . you are saying some things that are contrary to Church law.

1. The altar should have an altar stone or the relics may be built into the altar. However, the stone is not mandatory. For example, when the Holy Father celebrates mass in public statiums there is no altar stone. The altar is portable. But it is still a valid altar as long as it is blessed.
2. Parishes that have permanent altars have altar stones.
3. The rule is that the altar must be positioned so that you can walk around it. There are rituals that require that the celebrant incense the altar all around it.
4. The priest can face the people or face in the same direction as the people. It’s his choice. If you notice the Holy Father always faces the people.
5. Ad orientem can mean facing to the east or facing the crucifix on the altar or a crucifix in the sanctuary.
6. An altar can be made of any material that is solid.

The same altar that is used for the Ordinary Form can also be used for the Extraodinary Form. Many of us have seen how the Poor Clares simply set up the altar facing in the same direction as the congregation. That altar is very much consecrated but it’s not flushed against the wall, because it’s forbidden by the GIRM.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

Altars are supposed to have altar stones. Altar stones contain relics of saints. A table at a Novus Ordo Mass does not have an altar stone. Not to mention at a Novus Ordo Mass it’s just sitting in the very middle and isn’t up against a wall like it’s supposed to be. And when you have the lay people up there and the priest facing the people more you know it resembles a meal more than anything. You can certainly tell the difference.

You don’t know very much about altars, do you?

 

[JReducation]

The Novus Ordo is a valid Mass (although some question it’s validity) but validity isn’t all that matters. The Mass emerged from Vatican II, a Council that was in much question. Traditional Catholics aren’t trying to shoot you down for attending the NO, they’re trying to say what Archbishop LeFebvre and the SSPX have been saying all along. Traditionals still have respect for the Pope, but you’re allowed to dis-agree with him if his views are not Traditional. That’s not to say Traditional Catholics dis-agree with him on everything, but to say no Mass is better than the other is false. It doesn’t make any Traditional a non-Catholic, nor does it make them a sedevacanist. We’re just voicing our opinion. This is, after all, the Traditional section so Traditional Catholics really have more of a right to post on this section than anyone else. Our intent isn’t to offend people. I assure you that.

God Bless.

We’re going to agree that this is an opinion. But the pope has another opinion. We are not about to take the two opnions and put them in conflict with each other. The rule of the Church is that in such cases, you follow the position of the highest ranking authority unless he’s not the pope or his stating heresy, which would also mean that he’s not the pope. But if he’s not stating heresy, then his opinion trumps everyone else’s.

Remember, he never said that the Tridentine mass was not valid or less holy. He said that they are equally valid and equally sacred. He also said that he did not want this to be a cause of division. To take a position contrary to that of the Holy Father is a failure to comply with is wishes that this not be a point of division. He liberated the Tridentine mass for the benefit of those who are attached to it. It seems a great disservice on the part of those whom he tried to protect for them to turn around and say that he is mistaken.

I have a serious problem with this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

You don’t know very much about altars, do you?

You’re right. The altar at St. Peter’s Basilica has never been against the wall, neither has the altar at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was built before Vatican II. Now that I remember it, the altar at our motherhouse in Assisi is not against the wall either. It’s in the center of the choir. That church is much older than St. Peter’s in Rome. It was built in 1228. The altar was built between the choir stalls to allow for both the Liturgy of the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours.

Thanks for reminding me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

To JREd:

The argument that because something was done somewhere, at some time, in some religious order, or some other rite, means that it can be shoe-horned into the Roman Catholic Rite, now, is a bad one.

It takes no account of the history of our rite or the local conditions. Or even the purpose of the rite, which is the propitiation of God.

Drastically editing the text, dropping Latin and chant, versus populum, free-standing altar tables and all the other changes may have been legitimate, individually, in other times and places,** but sticking them all into the Roman Catholic rite, all-together, in one go, is an act of iconoclasm.**

Also, stripping literary, musical and architectural ornament from our rite may be worthy amongst monks and friars but doing so in a diocesan church attended by wage-earners is perverse.

I recall St. John Vianney didn’t care what he ate but he spent a lot of money on his vestments and vessels.

Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

I also recall that the Three Kings gave the infant Jesus some expensive presents.** If you go visit someone to whom you owe everything, like your mother or father and give them a cheap present, well below your means, what does that say about you? And what will they think about you in return?**

 

[JMJ_coder]

The argument that because something was done somewhere, at some time, in some religious order, or some other rite, means that it can be shoe-horned into the Roman Catholic Rite, now, is a bad one.

The appeal to how things have been done in particular locations, religious orders, and other rites of the Church is to directly counter the argument which seems to insist on an absolute uniformity of all time and all places. Well, that just isn’t so.

For example, some may have us believe that unless the altar looks like the High Altar of a SSPX chapel that it is a heresy. But, the SSPX version of an Altar is not the end-all be-all of altar design. The same is true of most of the traditions – lowercase ‘t’ – that have been paraded around and proclaimed as Tradition – uppercase ‘T’.

 

[Layman]

Well, the funny thing is that you can have modifications to the Latin rite that a precedent can be found for across thousands of years. Except the TLM in its entirety. That’s been a problem, until recently.

1940 - 2007: Populism, de-clericalisation, selective antiquarianism, minimalism. The result: banality. A Mass where the participants form a closed circle.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Well, the funny thing is that you can have modifications to the Latin rite that a precedent can be found for across thousands of years. Except the TLM in its entirety. That’s been a problem, until recently.

I imagine similar ramblings were made in the wake of the Council of Trent when numerous Western Rites were simply suppressed outright.

1940 - 2007: Populism, de-clericalisation, selective antiquarianism, minimalism. The result: banality. A Mass where the participants form a closed circle.

While I certainly disagree on your take here, at least you’re recognizing that the changes in many areas of the Church at Vatican II didn’t just appear out of thin air but from years and decades before (such as the beginnings of modern liturgical renewal begun under Pope Leo XIII).

 

[Layman]

I imagine similar ramblings were made in the wake of the Council of Trent when numerous Western Rites were simply suppressed outright.

Well, we only had one, the TLM. And it was suppressed outright.

While I certainly disagree on your take here, at least you’re recognizing that the changes in many areas of the Church at Vatican II didn’t just appear out of thin air but from years and decades before (such as the beginnings of modern liturgical renewal begun under Pope Leo XIII).

Nothing comes from nothing. The toothing for modernism, change, a ‘breath of fresh air’, began with the printing of the first Gutenburg bible. Then, a man could become his own Pope.

With the advent of public libraries, any man could become a biblical scholar.

With paperback books, any man could become a liturgical scholar.

The result: a ‘rationalisation’ of a mystical rite. You don’t really need all those ‘externalities’.

With the internet, we’re finding just how shady the development on the New Mass was and what the post-Vat. II mentality has wrought in parishes worldwide.

Good news: Thanks to the internet and blogs, people are seeing what a Mass could be. That their own parishes’ production is not the norm.

 

[JReducation]

To JREd:

The argument that because something was done somewhere, at some time, in some religious order, or some other rite, means that it can be shoe-horned into the Roman Catholic Rite, now, is a bad one.

You missed my point. My point is that people are saying, “This has never been done.” or “The Catholic Church has always done it this way.” My point is that much of this has always been done, even if it’s by a minority and it would not have been allowed if it were truly evil.

My second point is that there was never such a thing as the same mass in the entire Roman Church. Those who claim there was are saying something that is not true. If they want to say that this was the mass that was used by the secular clergy and priests in congregations, that is true, but only from Pius V forward.

It takes no account of the history of our rite or the local conditions. Or even the purpose of the rite, which is the propitiation of God.

Are not the other rites in the Roman Church propitiation of God? Are they not part of the Roman Church’s history? Do we now impose the one position on those who never practiced it? If we do that with the EF, then we are doing was we claim was done with the OF. By the way, the OF never took away the rights of those small groups that had other forms of the Roman rite.

Drastically editing the text, dropping Latin and chant, versus populum, free-standing altar tables and all the other changes may have been legitimate, individually, in other times and places,** but sticking them all into the Roman Catholic rite, all-together, in one go, is an act of iconoclasm.**

It would be iconoclasm if these had died off. But they are very much alive and well. These practices never died off. In fact, some of these small groups were violated by the Liturgical Reform of Vatican II. I’ll give you an example. Vatican II imposed Gregorian chant on the Franciscans. It took them 20 years of appeals to get it out of their chapels again.

Also, stripping literary, musical and architectural ornament from our rite may be worthy amongst monks and friars but doing so in a diocesan church attended by wage-earners is perverse.

Why is it perverse? Have you ever watched the mass on EWTN? Is it perverse? It’s the form of the mass that you will find in any parish that is run by the Franciscans. If a bishop does not agree to it, they leave the diocese and the parish closes down. This has not happened. Everyone loves that form. It’s done in Latin and in local languages. The only thing that changes is the language. The friars have the option.

I recall St. John Vianney didn’t care what he ate but he spent a lot of money on his vestments and vessels.

St. John Vianney was also a secular. He was not bound to a religious tradition. If you get a Trappist to come to your parish, you will have to accept the Trappist simplicity and austerity in the mass. It does not take anything away from the Trappist or from St. John Vianney. The Trappist follow St. Bernard’s tradition, that’s all.

The laity in the parish have to accommodate. They can’t demand that a Trappist celebrate mass like a priest of the FSSP or a Franciscan, because he’s not one of them. He’s a Trappist. They have different customs and different histories. They certainly have nothing in common with St. John Vianney. They look to St. Bernard for their guidance.

We have to respect that. That’s my point. It’s not that this form is better than that fornm. Pope Benedict has spoken on this point. He has said that they are equal in dignity and in holiness. He has also said that he does not want the form of the mass to be an issue for division. We’re letting him down here.

My point is that we tell the whole story, not just the part that all of this and that is novel and banal. Because that is not the truth. Much has been carried over from other less known traditions. We can certainly question whether that was a wise move. But to say that they were good for some people and devious for others is not right. What’s good it always good. God does not create opposing goods.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

It would be iconoclasm if these had died off. But they are very much alive and well. These practices never died off. In fact, some of these small groups were violated by the Liturgical Reform of Vatican II. I’ll give you an example. Vatican II imposed Gregorian chant on the Franciscans. It took them 20 years of appeals to get it out of their chapels again.

That’s interesting – are you saying that something in the Vatican II documents required Gregorian chant in Franciscan chapels? I’ve never heard that.

 

[JReducation]

That’s interesting – are you saying that something in the Vatican II documents required Gregorian chant in Franciscan chapels? I’ve never heard that.

What happened was that the Council declared the primacy of Gregorian Chant. Some friars who were into “anything new” took this to the General Council of the Order and it was voted on and ammended to the rule. Pope Paul VI approved it. This led many to ask why this was added, when Francis had forbidden it. Unfortunately, Pope Paul VI died and the question remained in the air.

To make a long story short, Pope John Paul II finally said that those branches of the Franciscan order that wanted to could use the Gregorian chant and those who did not want to do so, were not obliged to do so, because it is not part of our tradition. He said that the Holy Rule could not be trumped by a Council Document without it first being abrogated by a pope.

Pope Honorius III put a Papal Bull on the rule giving it the same force of law over the order as Canon Law has over the universal Church. It takes a pope to undo what Francis did. Paul VI never edited the rule. He simply approved an ammendment. An ammendment is not the rule. Therefore, the ammendment can be changed. John Paul agreed that the amendment was in conflict with the rule and the rule has never been touched by any pope. It has stood unchallenged for 800 years. Even bishops and Cardinals or the superiors general do not have the authority to ever all it into question. Only a pope can do that.

It was pretty clear that introducing Gregorian chant was not Paul’s idea. His idea seems to have been the same same as John Paul’s, make it available to those who want it, not mandatory. In other words, they took the sin out of using Gregorian chant. It would have been a sin to disobey Francis. This part is taken away. In the end, the wording of the ammendment was edited. Gregorian chant continues to be extraordinar and external to Franciscan liturgy, but it can be used. It just can’t be mandatory, not even in parishes run by the friars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Marie5890]

What happened was that the Council declared the primacy of Gregorian Chant. Some friars who were into “anything new” took this to the General Council of the Order and it was voted on and ammended to the rule. Pope Paul VI approved it. This led many to ask why this was added, when Francis had forbidden it. Unfortunately, Pope Paul VI died and the question remained in the air.

To make a long story short, Pope John Paul II finally said that those branches of the Franciscan order that wanted to could use the Gregorian chant and those who did not want to do so, were not obliged to do so, because it is not part of our tradition. He said that the Holy Rule could not be trumped by a Council Document without it first being abrogated by a pope.

Pope Honorius III put a Papal Bull on the rule giving it the same force of law over the order as Canon Law has over the universal Church. It takes a pope to undo what Francis did. Paul VI never edited the rule. He simply approved an ammendment. An ammendment is not the rule. Therefore, the ammendment can be changed. John Paul agreed that the amendment was in conflict with the rule and the rule has never been touched by any pope. It has stood unchallenged for 800 years. Even bishops and Cardinals or the superiors general do not have the authority to ever all it into question. Only a pope can do that.

It was pretty clear that introducing Gregorian chant was not Paul’s idea. His idea seems to have been the same same as John Paul’s, make it available to those who want it, not mandatory. In other words, they took the sin out of using Gregorian chant. It would have been a sin to disobey Francis. This part is taken away. In the end, the wording of the ammendment was edited. Gregorian chant continues to be extraordinar and external to Franciscan liturgy, but it can be used. It just can’t be mandatory, not even in parishes run by the friars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I always find it interesting when you describe all the “gray” areas that can come into play within the universal Church. That it simply isn’t as black and white as some would suggest when it comes to (little) “t” tradition. That we all really need to be educated on what is faith, morals, Tradition, and tradition. In all of the rites, orders, disciples, etc.

Thank you.

 

[MarkThompson]

What happened was that the Council declared the primacy of Gregorian Chant. Some friars who were into “anything new” took this to the General Council of the Order and it was voted on and ammended to the rule. Pope Paul VI approved it. This led many to ask why this was added, when Francis had forbidden it. Unfortunately, Pope Paul VI died and the question remained in the air.
. . .

Ah, that makes more sense. I would have been pretty surprised if Vatican II had forced Gregorian chant on the Franciscans over their protest. Well, at least you can revel in the irony that for you the ravages of postconciliar musical modernism meant too much Gregorian chant!

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Wait a minute . . . you are saying some things that are contrary to Church law.

1. The altar should have an altar stone or the relics may be built into the altar. However, the stone is not mandatory. For example, when the Holy Father celebrates mass in public statiums there is no altar stone. The altar is portable. But it is still a valid altar as long as it is blessed.
2. Parishes that have permanent altars have altar stones.
3. The rule is that the altar must be positioned so that you can walk around it. There are rituals that require that the celebrant incense the altar all around it.
4. The priest can face the people or face in the same direction as the people. It’s his choice. If you notice the Holy Father always faces the people.
5. Ad orientem can mean facing to the east or facing the crucifix on the altar or a crucifix in the sanctuary.
6. An altar can be made of any material that is solid.

The same altar that is used for the Ordinary Form can also be used for the Extraodinary Form. Many of us have seen how the Poor Clares simply set up the altar facing in the same direction as the congregation. That altar is very much consecrated but it’s not flushed against the wall, because it’s forbidden by the GIRM.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

1.- A table may be blessed, but let us remember that there is a difference between a table and an altar. The tables at many Novus Ordo Masses, of course, look alot like tables.

2.- Those parishes are either Traditional parishes or parishes that have not been “modernised” since Vatican II. Your second point basically contradicts your first point. You said permanent altars. So that would mean that any parish that does not have a permanent altar has a table instead, thus proving my point.

3.- How long has this rule been around? At many Traditional parishes the altars are up against the wall so you can’t walk around it yet the celebrant incenses around it.

4- It’s not really his choice. Prior the Vatican II the priest was required to only face the people when distributing Communion, giving the sermon, turning around for the Dominus vobiscum, blessing the people, and leaving. Most of the time at a TLM the priest faces the altar.

 

[MarkThompson]

1.- A table may be blessed, but let us remember that there is a difference between a table and an altar. The tables at many Novus Ordo Masses, of course, look alot like tables.

Do they look like this, then? Or is that a “Novus Ordo” Mass too?

 

[ProVobis]

Do they look like this, then?

That’s a nice picture, Mark. I realize it was to prove a point but it’s still a good find. My father could have easily been there.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Well, we only had one, the TLM. And it was suppressed outright.

No, actually there were several Rites and usages in the Roman Church – Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, Carthusian, Carmelite, and Roman. Not a single one was abrogated with the Second Vatican Council.

Nothing comes from nothing. The toothing for modernism, change, a ‘breath of fresh air’, began with the printing of the first Gutenburg bible. Then, a man could become his own Pope.

With the advent of public libraries, any man could become a biblical scholar.

With paperback books, any man could become a liturgical scholar.

The result: a ‘rationalisation’ of a mystical rite. You don’t really need all those ‘externalities’.

With the internet, we’re finding just how shady the development on the New Mass was and what the post-Vat. II mentality has wrought in parishes worldwide.

Good news: Thanks to the internet and blogs, people are seeing what a Mass could be. That their own parishes’ production is not the norm.

Do you know how ridiculous this makes you sound? Are you honestly advocating for people to be illiterate? That education is the enemy of religion?

 

[JMJ_coder]

3.- How long has this rule been around? At many Traditional parishes the altars are up against the wall so you can’t walk around it yet the celebrant incenses around it.

Well, the modern Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome, which has a freestanding hight altar, was built approx. around the time of the Council of Trent.

Pictured below is the Basilica of Santa Maria in Trastevere, which is located in the environs of Rome, also has a freestanding high altar. This particular church is arguably the oldest in Rome, being built in the 4th century.

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/...stevere/resized/int-cc-eugenia-and-julian.jpg

 

[JReducation]

Ah, that makes more sense. I would have been pretty surprised if Vatican II had forced Gregorian chant on the Franciscans over their protest. Well, at least you can revel in the irony that for you the ravages of postconciliar musical modernism meant too much Gregorian chant!

LOL

I never thought about it that way. I like Gregorian chant. I just can’t do it. You really have to have a good ear to do good chant. I’m as tone deaf as they come.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF