TLM At the National Shrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmorgan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seriously, why can we not discuss and debate without getting into school-yard name calling matches? I wanted honest opinions about how each of us viewed the Mass at the National Shrine. I KNOW that the pro NO crowd will find reasons not to want to see the EF replace the NO. I KNOW that the pro EF crowd wants the EF to be restored as the only Mass. I am with the latter. I just really wanted opinions of how seeing the EF in a Basilica that had not seen an EF for many years, administered by a Bishop would impact modern Catholics. Many Catholics have never seen this Mass. Novus Ordo in its many forms has been the OF for most Catholics today. If we as pro EF Catholics hope to have an increase of the EF we have to show our bretheren the Holiness and Sanctity of the EF. And explain why we feel this Mass is a more reverent, worshipfull prayer to God than the truncated version we now have. There is a time to argue, but now is the time to teach.
I expect the more realistic expectation would be to see the EF be offered more widely, but highly doubt it would be used exclusively.

You said…

"If we as pro EF Catholics hope to have an increase of the EF we have to show our bretheren the Holiness and Sanctity of the EF. "

I dont think that is the issue. It isnt about the holiness and sanctity of the EF that people arent drawn to it. It’s more about people being able to sense holiness and sanctity in the NO as well.
But that doesnt mean others cant.
I can sincerely see the need and the desire for the EF to be made widely more available and I think the Holy Father is doing a lot to encourage that. Which is wonderful.

But because people are very different with different spiritual needs and different ways of relating to their environments, dont expect most Catholics to get on board with feeling completely at home with the worship style of the EF.

I went to a different Catholic parish not too long ago. Very progressive and I wasnt comfortable.
Watching the TLM on EWTN doesnt make me uncomfortable, but it doesnt hold my attention and thus doesnt draw me in. I find it distracting.

None of that is a diss, but just an explanation of my experience
 
And explain why we feel this Mass is a more reverent, worshipfull prayer to God than the truncated version we now have. There is a time to argue, but now is the time to teach.
And I think this is were you may be misunderstanding.

For you, the EF holds more meaning and is a more worshipful experience.

But others find it not the case.

I know that for me what I would find the most reverent would be to be with those who are celebrating the Mass in areas of severe persecution to them.
For me its not all about the exterior trappings, but an internal intimacy with Our Lord.
 
Seriously, why can we not discuss and debate without getting into school-yard name calling matches? I wanted honest opinions about how each of us viewed the Mass at the National Shrine. I KNOW that the pro NO crowd will find reasons not to want to see the EF replace the NO. I KNOW that the pro EF crowd wants the EF to be restored as the only Mass. I am with the latter. I just really wanted opinions of how seeing the EF in a Basilica that had not seen an EF for many years, administered by a Bishop would impact modern Catholics. Many Catholics have never seen this Mass. Novus Ordo in its many forms has been the OF for most Catholics today. If we as pro EF Catholics hope to have an increase of the EF we have to show our bretheren the Holiness and Sanctity of the EF. And explain why we feel this Mass is a more reverent, worshipfull prayer to God than the truncated version we now have. There is a time to argue, but now is the time to teach.
👍👍👍
 
****For me its not all about the exterior trappings, but an internal intimacy with Our Lord.
Wow, that was a low blow.

Are you saying that those of use who prefer the EO are all about exterior trappings?
 
Are you saying that those of use who prefer the EO are all about exterior trappings?
No, not at all. And I apologize if it came off that way. I can see that for those who prefer the EO the external adds to your worship experience. For me that is not the case.

Can you understand that people are not all the same? That we all relate very differently to our external environments? Our experiences?

I have great faith in Our Lord’s understanding of each and every one of us and it’s my experience with Him that He realizes that very reality.

He comes to us as we are. Where we are. For some it’s in the EO, for others in NO (and yes even for some in far more progressive even more than I am comfortable with)

What was the reason for Pope John XX111 to call V-11 in the first place? (Yes I realize that many took V11 much farther than it ever was ment to go. But it was ment to go somewhere.)
 
What was the reason for Pope John XX111 to call V-11 in the first place? (Yes I realize that many took V11 much farther than it ever was ment to go. But it was ment to go somewhere.)
Good question. Perhaps a better question still would be why did Paul VI continue it.
 
No, not at all. And I apologize if it came off that way. I can see that for those who prefer the EO the external adds to your worship experience. For me that is not the case.

Can you understand that people are not all the same? That we all relate very differently to our external environments? Our experiences?

I have great faith in Our Lord’s understanding of each and every one of us and it’s my experience with Him that He realizes that very reality.

He comes to us as we are. Where we are. For some it’s in the EO, for others in NO (and yes even for some in far more progressive even more than I am comfortable with)

What was the reason for Pope John XX111 to call V-11 in the first place? (Yes I realize that many took V11 much farther than it ever was ment to go. But it was ment to go somewhere.)
Thank you for sharing that Marie.
 
Good question. Perhaps a better question still would be why did Paul VI continue it.
Could be. 🙂
Im guessing he took the name “Paul V1” after St Paul the Apostle cause he had a broader vision as well??

(I think back to how Paul rocked the boat of the early Church by going to preach to the Gentiles. Many got upset over that or at least that gentiles not having to be circumcised. The history of the Church and Her people is filled with wrinkles and some feeling that things should be “thus and such” and others feeling it should be “this and that”)

What a patient God we have who loves us all, even when we dont show the love and kindness to each other. 👍
 
What was the reason for Pope John XX111 to call V-11 in the first place? (Yes I realize that many took V11 much farther than it ever was ment to go. But it was ment to go somewhere.)
Why don’t we ask him. In his own words from the speech opening the Council:

Illuminated by the light of this Council, the Church – we confidently trust – will become greater in spiritual riches and gaining the strength of new energies therefrom, she will look to the future without fear. In fact, by bringing herself up to date where required, and by the wise organization of mutual co-operation, the Church will make men, families, and peoples really turn their minds to heavenly things.

And thus the holding of the Council becomes a motive for wholehearted thanksgiving to the Giver of every good gift, in order to celebrate with joyous canticles the glory of Christ our Lord, the glorious and immortal King of ages and of peoples.

The opportuneness of holding the Council is, moreover, venerable brothers, another subject which it is useful to propose for your consideration. Namely, in order to render our Joy more complete, we wish to narrate before this great assembly our assessment of the happy circumstances under which the Ecumenical Council commences.

In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.

We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.

In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfilment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.

It is easy to discern this reality if we consider attentively the world of today, which is so busy with politics and controversies in the economic order that it does not find time to attend to the care of spiritual reality, with which the Church’s Magisterium is concerned. such a way of acting is certainly not right, and must justly be disapproved. It cannot be denied, however, that these new conditions of modern life have at least the advantage of having eliminated those innumerable obstacles by which, at one time, the sons of this world impeded the free action of the Church. In fact, it suffices to leaf even cursorily through the pages of ecclesiastical history to note clearly how the Ecumenical Councils themselves, while constituting a series of true glories for the Catholic Church, were often held to the accompaniment of most serious difficulties and sufferings because of the undue interference of civil authorities. The princes of this world, indeed, sometimes in all sincerity, intended thus to protect the Church. But more frequently this occurred not without spiritual damage and danger, since their interest therein was guided by the views of a selfish and perilous policy.
 
There are several misunderstandings here. Let’s talk about the Knights of Columbus. The Knights have served as escorts to bishops and popes for centuries. Before it was the Knights of Columbus there were other groups of knights, especially in Europe. The concept of knights is new to the USA. It began with the Knights of Columbus. But knights as an escort during the entrance procession of an Episcopal or Pontifical Mass by a pope was a common occurrence in Europe, long before the Tridentine mass and after the Tridentine mass was adopted.

Second, I did not see a cross-over from the Ordinary Form to the Extraordinary Form. The entire mass used the Extraordinary Form. In fact, you’re not allowed to blend the two forms, just as you’re not allowed to blend rites.

We have to be very careful how we use words. To say that one form is holier or more sacred than the other is contrary to Church teaching. If we read Summorum Pontificum, the Holy Father explicitly states that both are forms of the Latin Rite and are equally holy and sacred. One can certainly have a preference for one form or another. That’s why the Church has provided for both forms, so that those who have a preference for the EF are not deprived of it. It was not his intention to see us use the EF to beat others over the head with it. That is wrong.

As to reactions, I thought it was very beautiful. I like the pageantry, even though my community is not allowed to have it. But it does not mean that I can’t like it. We just can’t have it in our chapels. I was always curious as to how the EF would be celebrated at the Basilica. I studied at Catholic University of America for many years before going to Rome and I never saw the EF. When the EF came back, I always wondered about how it could be celebrated, given the way that the sanctuary is built. If you have never been there, you may not know that the sanctuary is not at the end of the building. It’s actually circular and is erected away from the back wall so that you can walk around it. It imitates the sanctuary at St. Peter’s Basilica, which is also what is called a sanctuary in the round. People can sit on either side. In St. Peter’s they actually do sit on both sides. If you have a ticket, you can sit behind the main altar, which places you much closer to the Holy Father, because there are no barriers.

Anyway, it was nice to see that it could be done without distractions or looking odd. I don’t feel that it was over choreographed. Was it choreographed? Of course it was. So is every mass that the Holy Father celebrates. People practice every gesture, every moment, and every word for weeks in advance. The last thing that you want to do is to mess up on such an important occasion. This was the first time that the EF was celebrated at the Shrine and a Pontifical mass to boot. They better get everything right.

It was a beautiful mass and I hope they have it several times a year.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
There are several misunderstandings here. Let’s talk about the Knights of Columbus. The Knights have served as escorts to bishops and popes for centuries. Before it was the Knights of Columbus there were other groups of knights, especially in Europe. The concept of knights is new to the USA. It began with the Knights of Columbus. But knights as an escort during the entrance procession of an Episcopal or Pontifical Mass by a pope was a common occurrence in Europe, long before the Tridentine mass and after the Tridentine mass was adopted.

Second, I did not see a cross-over from the Ordinary Form to the Extraordinary Form. The entire mass used the Extraordinary Form. In fact, you’re not allowed to blend the two forms, just as you’re not allowed to blend rites.

We have to be very careful how we use words. To say that one form is holier or more sacred than the other is contrary to Church teaching. If we read Summorum Pontificum, the Holy Father explicitly states that both are forms of the Latin Rite and are equally holy and sacred. One can certainly have a preference for one form or another. That’s why the Church has provided for both forms, so that those who have a preference for the EF are not deprived of it. It was not his intention to see us use the EF to beat others over the head with it. That is wrong.

As to reactions, I thought it was very beautiful. I like the pageantry, even though my community is not allowed to have it. But it does not mean that I can’t like it. We just can’t have it in our chapels. I was always curious as to how the EF would be celebrated at the Basilica. I studied at Catholic University of America for many years before going to Rome and I never saw the EF. When the EF came back, I always wondered about how it could be celebrated, given the way that the sanctuary is built. If you have never been there, you may not know that the sanctuary is not at the end of the building. It’s actually circular and is erected away from the back wall so that you can walk around it. It imitates the sanctuary at St. Peter’s Basilica, which is also what is called a sanctuary in the round. People can sit on either side. In St. Peter’s they actually do sit on both sides. If you have a ticket, you can sit behind the main altar, which places you much closer to the Holy Father, because there are no barriers.

Anyway, it was nice to see that it could be done without distractions or looking odd. I don’t feel that it was over choreographed. Was it choreographed? Of course it was. So is every mass that the Holy Father celebrates. People practice every gesture, every moment, and every word for weeks in advance. The last thing that you want to do is to mess up on such an important occasion. This was the first time that the EF was celebrated at the Shrine and a Pontifical mass to boot. They better get everything right.

It was a beautiful mass and I hope they have it several times a year.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
The Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass are not equal. As my parish priest once said, “One is better than the other, and it’s the Tridentine Mass”. Of course, this was an FSSP priest and he therefore could not say anything offensive about the Novus Ordo, but you can say it without being offensive, and he did a fine job on that.
 
The Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass are not equal. As my parish priest once said, “One is better than the other, and it’s the Tridentine Mass”. Of course, this was an FSSP priest and he therefore could not say anything offensive about the Novus Ordo, but you can say it without being offensive, and he did a fine job on that.
I’m quoting the Holy Father, not the parish priest. Which one is right? Or did the priest say “not the same”? That would be true. They are different forms of the same rite.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I’m quoting the Holy Father, not the parish priest. Which one is right? Or did the priest say “not the same”? That would be true. They are different forms of the same rite.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
He said both, actually. They’re not the same and one is better. Even if he didn’t say one is better, considering he only celebrates the TLM, I think we all know what he thinks about the two Masses.
 
He said both, actually. They’re not the same and one is better. Even if he didn’t say one is better, considering he only celebrates the TLM, I think we all know what he thinks about the two Masses.
That doesn’t flow from that at all. I regularly attend a OF Mass, but I certainly don’t think of it as “better” than the EF – nor do I consider the EF “better” than the OF. I don’t think this any more than I think the Latin rite is “better” than the the Byzantine rite or the Maronite rite. They are not the same, but equal in dignity, holiness, and sacredness (not to mention licitness and validity).
 
That doesn’t flow from that at all. I regularly attend a OF Mass, but I certainly don’t think of it as “better” than the EF – nor do I consider the EF “better” than the OF. I don’t think this any more than I think the Latin rite is “better” than the the Byzantine rite or the Maronite rite. They are not the same, but equal in dignity, holiness, and sacredness (not to mention licitness and validity).
Sorry, but the TLM and Novus Ordo are not equal. That’s why I never call them the OF and EF, it puts them on the exact same level.
 
It was a beautiful mass and I hope they have it several times a year.
Thank you very much for that, brother. It seems that many people hate and wish to destroy the EF and indeed the whole Christian tradition before the advent of Liberation Theology. And lately they’ve come very close to assassinating the small amount of brotherly love I actually possess. 😦
 
Sorry, but the TLM and Novus Ordo are not equal. That’s why I never call them the OF and EF, it puts them on the exact same level.
But you have to be careful with that position, because then you are implying that the Holy Father is wrong. Here is what he wrote to the bishops.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

The Holy Father makes two very important points here. The two missals are not contrary. If they are not contrary, then they are equivalent. His closing point that priests may not refuse to celebrate using the new boos because it would be inconsistent with the Church’s recognition of the value and holiness of the OF.

We cannot put ourselves in conflict with the Holy Father, regardless of which form we prefer. It is one thing to have a preference and another to teach or say something that is not what the Holy Father has said or contrary to what he has said and shown us.

Do you see what I’m saying?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top