TLM in English?

[Swiss_Guard]

First, I didn’t state that you were arrogant and elitist. What I said was that statements like this:

"Those whose biggest complaint about the Tridentine Mass is the use of Latin wouldn’t like it if it were in English."

and this:

"Those attached to the Novus Ordo would not go to the Tridentine Mass no matter what language is used. It’s not the language that gives them trouble, it’s the theology behind the Mass."

did nothing to dissuade anyone that many of those pushing for the TLM are not elitist and arrogant. If you feel that it was aimed at you, perhaps you should go back and look at what you wrote.I t is uncharitable to lump people together so that they can be simply dismissed.

Thank you for your reply. I sometimes have a problem clearly communicating my thoughts, so naturally I also sometimes have a problem understanding what others are trying to communicate. I understand you did not aim those comments at me. Please understand that I misunderstood your comment based on the fact you quoted me. I agree that it’s not charitable to lump everyone together for any reason. I should have added most to my statement. I do not believe you have a problem with the theology behind the Tridentine Mass.

Not all American Catholics that love the Mass of Paul VI or (I suppose) any Mass in the vernacular are Sr. Joan Chichester or Father Richard McBrien. Despite the spectacular examples of abuse and weirdness that crop up on the forums, I doubt MOST of them are.

I agree with you on this point too. Dr. James Hitchcock, professor at Saint Louis University and head of *Adoremus, *loves the Mass of Paul VI. I have heard him speak and he is certainly not even close to being in the same group as Sr. Joan or Fr. McBrien.

However, I disagree that most of the spectacular examples of abuses are true. I was a novice in a religious order and we used to get together with other novices. The spectacular examples of abuses are indeed true, as I have personally witnessed them. I would say that they are not that widespread. I saw the difference between Masses said for us novices only and Masses said with the public present. Somehow the abuses disappeared when the public was present.

Continued in the next post.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Continued from previous post.

As for rest of what you wrote, you’ve trotted out the same complaints about why some believe the TLM is inherently, in and of itself, more reverent, why the Pauline Mass is deficient, that we’ve all heard before. I’ve never been able to get this across and I doubt I will this time, but: Reverence is NOT in how many times one genuflects or makes the sign of the Cross. Certainly those things are signs that are terribly important, but I think we can take a warning from the Savior in one of His “woes” to the Pharisees, whom He scorned for lengthening their prayer tassels and for widening the straps of their phylacteries.

I take exception to comparing the Tridentine Mass with the Pharisees lengthening prayers. No matter what you think of the Tridentine Mass, it is still Our Lord Jesus Christ offering Himself to the Father, in the Holy Spirit, through the priest. I hope I am misunderstanding this statement.

There is a reason the rubrics are important, and I believe you touch on them in the quote below. When the rubrics are relaxed, reverence is also relaxed.

Reverence is an interior disposition which can be demonstrated by an outward action.

My point exactly. This is why I have a problem attending the Mass of Paul VI. The outward actions have been reduced, but, more importantly, the interior disposition is almost eliminated. The extreme emphasis, in my opinion, on “active participation” has de-emphasized the interior disposition of the soul. The Mass had always been about interior contemplation of the mystery unfolding on the altar. This is one reason the canon is said silently. Another reason is to show it is the words of the priest that brings about the consecration, not the presence of the community. This is a heresy that has made its way into the Church recently. It would be more difficult for this heresy to take root with a silent canon, since a silent canon properly put the emphasis on the action of the priest rather than the presence of the community.

Doing something over and over doesn’t make that interior reverence more than what it already is. Less CAN actually be more.

Eliminating rubrics and simplifying prayers is not making anything more reverent, let alone theologically sound. Compare the offertory prayer of the two Masses and see which prayers puts an emphasis on the Mass as a sacrifice and which one takes away that same emphasis. Less can be more, but not when less means theological confusion.

The NO Mass can certainly be abused, but I know too many old Catholics who’ve lived with both liturgies to believe that silly assertion that the old was abuse proof.

Human beings have a fallen nature, which means any Mass can be abused, including the Tridentine Mass. I completely agree with this statement.

You brought up your problem, I’ll bring up mine (and I have never in these forums criticized the TLM before): Latin (first and foremost): I don’t see the logic in insisting on Latin. Sure, it’s a dead language and immutable. That doesn’t matter, though, since no one can understand it!

No one can understand Latin? I thought you said it was uncharitable to simply lump people together so that they can be simply dismissed? Most Catholics don’t understand Latin, but that doesn’t mean all Catholics don’t understand it. I believe you need to re-think this statement, since it seems to me you’re using the fact that because most people don’t understand Latin as a reason to discard Latin. Bl. John XXIII, the pope who convened the Second Vatican Council, believes quite differently and states this in his encyclical *Veterum Sapientia. *I will let his words speak for itself:
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1160

Continued in the next post.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Continued from the previous post.

“But the translation is there on the next page!” But I thought that the point was that translation lead to a corruption of meaning, so this essentially means that the faithful are being given something a little skewed, a little off. Do we need to accomodate God by having the Mass in Latin? The Ancient of Days doesn’t understand English or German or Tagalog? God needs Latin? Please. And those who think we COULD have a little of the vernacular want to limit it to the readings, they want EVERYTHING else in Latin. I very much think that will effect the Church adversely.

The use of Latin sure effected the Church adversely. The saints from St. Gregory the Great to St. Pio of Pietrelcina were certainly adversely effected by Latin. The proper understanding of the Mass was adversely effected by Latin. Catholics who walked for miles just to attend Mass on Sundays, who wouldn’t miss praying the rosary daily, who were devoted to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament were adversely effected by Latin. Again, read what Bl. John XXIII says about the use of Latin and you will come to see this statement has no merit.

I will also refer you to Bl. John XXIII again that God “doesn’t understand English or German or Taglog.” Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church. We should all become more proficient in the official language of Holy Mother Church.

While translation can certainly have an adverse effect on the correct meaning, it is not as important in a Mass focuses on interior contemplation rather than exterior contemplation. I guarantee those “old ladies” praying their rosaries during Mass knew the three most important parts of the Mass and had a clear understanding of the Mass as primarily a sacrifice. How many Catholics today are clear on the fact that the Mass is a sacrifice, especially when the focus of the sacrificial aspect of the Mass has been replaced by “active participation?” I’m preparing 8th grade children for Confirmation and most of them still don’t understand the Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary, even though I had them last year in 7th grade and drove the point home to them over and over again.

Have you watched the video of the TLM that Archbishop Sheen of happy memory narrarated? You can find it several places. If you haven’t, watch it. I find the Asperges as it is done there almost funny. People complain (and rightly so) about liturgical dance, yet this looks like nothing so much as a “liturgical line dance,” a “Boot Scootin’ Boogie” down the nave of the church.

I have not seen the video, but I can recommend two videos that beautifully show the Tridentine Mass. One is called Tradition, which is a High Mass sung by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. The other is The Most Beautiful Thing This Side of Heaven which is more of an instructional video for priests to learn to offer the Tridentine Mass, but it is helpful for those who want to understand it better.

The Asperges is only done on Sundays and just before the start of Mass. It is still continued in the Mass of Paul VI in the “sprinkling rite” which replaces one of the three optional Confiteors on Sundays. Apparently you didn’t know this or you wouldn’t have made such a disrespectful comment. I find this comment very arrogant and disrespectful.

And what’s with the server’s continuing the practice of lifting the hem of the priest’s chasuble when he elevates the Chalice? I could see it back in the day when the chasuble was actually encrusted with gems, was actually heavy.

The reason the altar boy lifts the hem of the chasuble when the priest elevates the Sacred Host and Chalice is to enable the priest to freely moves his arms. The consecration is the most important part of the Mass, so it is only fitting that the priest should not be hindered when elevating the Sacred Body and Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

And the continued insistence on the part of “traditionalists” on things like birettas on priests, the absolute necessity of the Roman chasuble (looks like a an overdone Dairy Queen apron), the changing from cope to chasuble mid-service, just seems more than a tad fussy, a little on the precious side, slightly effeminate, flowery, overdone, mincing.

I’m certainly glad to see you don’t use arrogant and elitist statements, not to mention insulting. I’m sensing you have hostility towards anything the Catholic Church practiced before 1965.

Continued in the next post.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Continued from the previous post.

Even if the NO Mass was ONLY in Latin, I’d attend it (esp. inasmuch as it possesses the fullness of Catholic Truth as well) rather than the TLM.

It is certainly your perogative to attend the Mass of Paul VI exclusively. However, it is only your opinion that it posseses the fullness of Catholic Truth. I have given examples of Catholic Truth being de-emphasized or eliminated in the Mass of Paul VI. You have not demonstrated it posseses the fullness of Catholic Truth. This is also a reason I have a problem attending the Mass of Paul VI.

There is a noble austerity and simplicity to the Pauline Mass well and reverently celebrated. Yes, it’s sometimes abused and that needs to be stopped. But it is not, of its form or nature, any less Catholic than the TLM, despite all of the things you mention. It’s an excellent example, to my mind, of “less is more.”

My parish does not have any abuses in the Mass of Paul VI. Every priest, whether it be a resident priest or a visiting priest, says the Mass according to the rubrics. My problem with the Mass of Paul VI is that when it is said reverently and according to the rubrics, it is still deficient, especially when compared with the Tridentine Mass which posseses the fullness of Catholic Truth. Simplicity, yes. Austerity, maybe. Noble, no. There is never a case where less Catholic Truth is more.

Think I’m alone in that opinion? Read what Cardinal Dulles (hardly a liberal, he hung out with Fr. Feeny) has to say about his experience of the old Mass:

cardinalrating.com/cardinal_181__article_109.htm

As you can see by the time of my post, it’s late and I really shouldn’t have stayed up this long. I will read it when I get the chance.

However, in all fairness, I should point out to you that I believe just because Cardinal Dulles was once a follower of Fr. Feeney, that doesn’t mean he isn’t a liberal/modernist today. There was a German priest at the Second Vatican Council who was a follower of Karl Rahner and Hans Kung. His name? Fr. Joseph Ratzinger. Does anyone really believe Pope Benedict XVI is a modernist in the mold of Rahner and Kung?

Prayer never hurt anyone, so I thank you and assure you of mine.

Prayer is something we all need. There is nothing more important than prayer, which is why we both have such a high regard for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. St. Pius X called the Mass the highest form of prayer. Despite our difference of opinion on the Tridentine Mass and the Mass of Paul VI, we both know there is nothing more nourshing for our souls than to pray the Holy Mass.

One last reason I have a problem with the Mass of Paul VI has to do with watching a Sunday service from a Lutheran church on public access. The minister looked like a priest except that he wasn’t wearing a chasuble. The altar was set up just like the it would be for the Mass of Paul VI. The rubrics of the service were almost identical to the Mass of Paul VI. If I didn’t know I was watching a Lutheran service, I would have sworn it was a Mass. Even the prayers were similar.

Maybe you prefer the Mass of Paul VI because it’s not a big difference in worship for you before you converted. I certainly can see how you can easily take to the Mass of Paul VI as a convert.

I believe the phrase lex orandi, lex credendi is true. We believe as we pray. This is why I only want to pray the Tridentine Mass. It posseses what the Mass of Paul VI lacks: the fullness of Catholic truth.

Thank you very much for your prayers. I am keeping you in mine.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

. Am still unclear about ad orientem and reading the Gospel from the North end of an east-west altar .

Then maybe you should learn about the Mass before you mock others. I suppose only those who attend the Tridentine Mass are uncharitable. I better start attending Novus Ordo Masses only, then I can’t be uncharitable.

 

[bear06]

I take exception to comparing the Tridentine Mass with the Pharisees lengthening prayers. No matter what you think of the Tridentine Mass, it is still Our Lord Jesus Christ offering Himself to the Father, in the Holy Spirit, through the priest. I hope I am misunderstanding this statement.

The comparison was not between the Tridentine and the Pharisees. It was between those who think they are the arbiters of reverence and the Pharisees.

It would be more difficult for this heresy to take root with a silent canon, since a silent canon properly put the emphasis on the action of the priest rather than the presence of the community.

If tomorrow you woke up to find that the Church was now to say the Tridentine only, you’d find out exactly how wrong this statement is. Those who will abuse will find a way. Can you just imagine Cardinal Mahony doing the Tridentine?

Eliminating rubrics and simplifying prayers is not making anything more reverent, let alone theologically sound

.

Again, you’re missing the point. Reverence doesn’t have anything to do with the specific prayers, length of prayers, etc.

Compare the offertory prayer of the two Masses and see which prayers puts an emphasis on the Mass as a sacrifice and which one takes away that same emphasis. Less can be more, but not when less means theological confusion.

Sigh.

 

[Ham1]

Continued from the previous post.

It is certainly your perogative to attend the Mass of Paul VI exclusively. However, it is only your opinion that it posseses the fullness of Catholic Truth. I have given examples of Catholic Truth being de-emphasized or eliminated in the Mass of Paul VI. You have not demonstrated it posseses the fullness of Catholic Truth. This is also a reason I have a problem attending the Mass of Paul VI.

My parish does not have any abuses in the Mass of Paul VI. Every priest, whether it be a resident priest or a visiting priest, says the Mass according to the rubrics. My problem with the Mass of Paul VI is that when it is said reverently and according to the rubrics, it is still deficient, especially when compared with the Tridentine Mass which posseses the fullness of Catholic Truth. Simplicity, yes. Austerity, maybe. Noble, no. There is never a case where less Catholic Truth is more.

As you can see by the time of my post, it’s late and I really shouldn’t have stayed up this long. I will read it when I get the chance.

However, in all fairness, I should point out to you that I believe just because Cardinal Dulles was once a follower of Fr. Feeney, that doesn’t mean he isn’t a liberal/modernist today. There was a German priest at the Second Vatican Council who was a follower of Karl Rahner and Hans Kung. His name? Fr. Joseph Ratzinger. Does anyone really believe Pope Benedict XVI is a modernist in the mold of Rahner and Kung?

Prayer is something we all need. There is nothing more important than prayer, which is why we both have such a high regard for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. St. Pius X called the Mass the highest form of prayer. Despite our difference of opinion on the Tridentine Mass and the Mass of Paul VI, we both know there is nothing more nourshing for our souls than to pray the Holy Mass.

One last reason I have a problem with the Mass of Paul VI has to do with watching a Sunday service from a Lutheran church on public access. The minister looked like a priest except that he wasn’t wearing a chasuble. The altar was set up just like the it would be for the Mass of Paul VI. The rubrics of the service were almost identical to the Mass of Paul VI. If I didn’t know I was watching a Lutheran service, I would have sworn it was a Mass. Even the prayers were similar.

Maybe you prefer the Mass of Paul VI because it’s not a big difference in worship for you before you converted. I certainly can see how you can easily take to the Mass of Paul VI as a convert.

I believe the phrase lex orandi, lex credendi is true. We believe as we pray. This is why I only want to pray the Tridentine Mass. It posseses what the Mass of Paul VI lacks: the fullness of Catholic truth.

Thank you very much for your prayers. I am keeping you in mine.

To state that the Mass of the Catholic Church does not possess the** fullness** of the faith is heretical and quite sinister. It is also based on your personal evaluation of the Mass. Apparently, your evaluation fails to recognize the authority of Christ’s Church. I suppose we are to conclude that you possess a better understanding of the sacrifice of the Mass and what constitutes the fullness of the faith than say, the Pope. Clearly, your position is on solid ground.

 

[KyrieEleison]

Just read the missle.

 

[bear06]

This is all coming down to a matter of opinion. I share the opinion of the Pope, Fr. Fessio, Hitchcock, etc. You can go on and on and on saying that your rose is prettier than anther rose but it’s subjective. And to say that your another rose is not a rose because you don’t think it is would be quite incorrect.

 

[AlexV]

The pope, Father Fessio, and Hitchcock can have any “opinion” they want.

It’s no more weighty on these subjective issues than anyone else’s.

That said, the problem with the Novus Ordo Missae isn’t what it says. It’s what it conveniently omits. Those omissions were by design, as Archbishop Bugnini, the architect of the NOM, makes clear in his 900+ account of how it was fabricated in 1965-1970.

 

[Anima_Christi]

Hi all,

I’m currently in RCIA and had a question. I really enjoy going to the Tridentine Latin Mass for its sense of reverence, the priest facing the proper way, etc. Is there (or if there is not, why isn’t there) a version of this mass where English is used instead of Latin? Just curious.

Thanks.

No, not in the Catholic Church. There are some traditionalist Anglican groups and perhaps some Old Catholic groups who basically have a Tridentine mass in Elizabethan English.

 

[bear06]

It’s no more weighty on these subjective issues than anyone else’s.

Say yours?

That said, the problem with the Novus Ordo Missae isn’t what it says. It’s what it conveniently omits.

Again, this is your opinion which is, I believe, what people have been trying to tell you. Mine is the same as the Pope’s. You may not value it but I’m quite comfortable with it. My hope is that the Holy Father makes people conform with his opinion!

 

[AlexV]

The pope’s opinions aren’t supposed to be viewed as some sort of “ideal” we’re called to conform to.

It’s a very unCatholic view of the nature of the papacy to argue otherwise.

Indeed, the idea that the “pope’s opinion” is what we should follow is, alas, just another opinion. It’s not a part of authentic Catholic teaching.

 

[bear06]

The pope’s opinions aren’t supposed to be viewed as some sort of “ideal” we’re called to conform to.

It’s a very unCatholic view of the nature of the papacy to argue otherwise.

Indeed, the idea that the “pope’s opinion” is what we should follow is, alas, just another opinion. It’s not a part of authentic Catholic teaching.

Give me a break. If the Pope called people us to follow a certain discipline, we would be expected to do so and that it was I meant. I’m just going to guess that you knew it and are trying to make a red-herring.

Also, if you’re planning on bringing up the Pope’s opinions on breakfast food - please don’t. The disciplines for the Mass are much different from the Pope’s choice in eggs.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

The pope’s opinions aren’t supposed to be viewed as some sort of “ideal” we’re called to conform to.

It’s a very unCatholic view of the nature of the papacy to argue otherwise.

Indeed, the idea that the “pope’s opinion” is what we should follow is, alas, just another opinion. It’s not a part of authentic Catholic teaching.

Better watch out, Alex. If you aren’t careful they’ll start quoting* Pastor Aeternus* at you. Out of context, of course.

And none of us want to see that. Oh, the humanity.

 

[bear06]

Better watch out, Alex. If you aren’t careful they’ll start quoting* Pastor Aeternus* at you. Out of context, of course.

And none of us want to see that. Oh, the humanity.

Again, I tire of the silly arguments. You have yet to show how I’ve ever quoted out of context and, unlike some, I always post a link so people can read it in its entirety. I used to post the whole thing but then the moderators asked us not to.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Again, I tire of the silly arguments. You have yet to show how I’ve ever quoted out of context and, unlike some, I always post a link so people can read it in its entirety. I used to post the whole thing but then the moderators asked us not to.

I never said you would quote out of context. Goodness, gracious no.

By the way. I sense a bit of a thread drift. Lockdown looming.

 

[bear06]

I never said you

would quote out of context. Goodness, gracious no.

Said with the greatest shocked tone he could muster. Don’t make me start quoting you, Bombay. I will!

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Said with the greatest shocked tone he could muster. Don’t make me start quoting you, Bombay. I will!

 

[bear06]

bear06;1581050:

I’m quite certain the Crash took care of my more unfortunate quotes.

Sorry. I believe it only lost from April on.