Now, I went to a couple of TLM lately, and I was slightly disappointed: most of the priest’s prayers were silent, even though we could read the Latin text and the translation… sometimes it was hard to follow where the priest was at… but for the rest, it was worth it.I was a small kid when we had the TLM. Very soon that was Paul VI’s Mass, still in Latin then. A few years after, we started having the mass in our own language. Now it seems to me that musically speaking, until we came to have it in our own language, it still was Gregorian Chant. I remember I kind of had the impression that the mood changed a little bit when it became sung in our language: the melody of the Kyrie and the Gloria switched from D Major to A minor… I remember it felt strange back then. But otherwise, if properly done, the Mass still can be lived with reverence.
I’m sorry but I don’t see it. The Mass is the Church’s supreme form of worship to God, where we give to God the ultimate sacrafice, His Son. The story in the garden can be seen as a test for Adam and Eve, but there’s no worship going on here. I don’t see God testing His people via their worship. In fact He gets very angry when their worship is used improperly, that is when it is not done in accord with His teachings. His teachings came primarily through the prophets then, they come through the pope and magisterium now. I don’t see where God used the prohets to test the folks via worship, and I can’t imagine Him doing it now through the OF. That does not compute with me, not at all. But honestly, I can be wrong. But it would come as a big surprise to me here.Here’s an example of God testing us: Genesis 3.
There are others as you should know.
I couldn’t agree with you more! Oh yes there was a spirit at work here , but it wasn’t The Holy Spirit. I just wonder what the saints that gave their lives for Holy Mother Church would have to say if they could come back and see this circus! But wait I’m sure they can see this mess from above, I wonder what they think? Back to topic qustion…I think the big misconception is that there is no “active partisipation” called for by Vatican II., which stated not only that latin was to be perserved but people are to be taught “those parts of the Mass that pertain to them” So there you have it “active particaption” All one has to do is take the time to learn latin(inc. some lazy priests) and you can pray The Mass ANYWHERE , with ANYONE in the world. Thus A REAL CATHOLIC CHURCHWhy does there have to be a precedent of test via worship? God has tested us in the past and for all we know the Novus Ordo could be one here in the present.
If the Spirit gave us the NO in 1969 how to you account for what it has changed into today as the two are not the same. To say nothing of the abuses, customizations, and novelties it is suseptible to.
While you have your Bible out, read Psalm 94.
Great point! Yes it does and in my thinking that is what they ment to do to make it more acceptible to non catholics. Guess what did any of them reunite with The Church? All it did is make it appear that we were wrong before! This whole big shift I really don’t understand, does anyone? As a child I lived through this mess. Remember well, Nuns putting on mini skirts, leaving the convents in masses, priests and nuns getting married, everone wondering what to believewit different answers from everyone in The Church! ect JUIST A BIG MESS EVERYWHERE! This the spirit of Vatican II ? A huge LOSS of faith? It lookes to me more like a test of faith!Your logic is questionable. Perhaps the Spirit gave us the Novus Ordo as a test.
Are you saying if the NO hadn’t been created yet catechesis declined anyway, the TLM would have the same disbelief today?
The new Mass shifts attention from Calvary to the Last Supper. While an important event this makes the new Mass more of a communal supper among bretheren rather than witnessing the Holy Sacrifice.
You could as well ask, “If Christ gave us the Catholic Church in AD 33, how do you account for the Inquisition, Crusades, simony, witch burnings and sex scandals?” The Church is not the sum of its scandals, sinful people in the Church caused the scandals, as I’m sure you’d acknowledge. Just like the “NO” (Ordinary Form) is not irreverence and inappropriate celebrations, sinful (or ignorant) people choose to celebrate it irreverently and inappropriately.If the Spirit gave us the NO in 1969 how to you account for what it has changed into today as the two are not the same. To say nothing of the abuses, customizations, and novelties it is suseptible to.
But if the Latin Rite already has a “reverent” Mass, why does it create another one? Did it really require modernization? Just trying to follow your logic here.Just like the “NO” (Ordinary Form) is not irreverence and inappropriate celebrations, sinful (or ignorant) people choose to celebrate it irreverently and inappropriately.
I agree, absolutely. I’ve never heard the TLM criticized for being “too reverent” but I have heard it criticized for being in Latin, for not having anywhere for people to participate, for not having hymns that folks are used to, etc. This tells me that the TLM is being judged (and condemned, oftentimes) based on poor understandings of it, not because of anything that is actually found in the TLM. usually, it’s ignorance and an unwillingness to learn more about it and why it is different from the OF that fuels any of the criticisms of it that I have heard. Much like the Church herself, misunderstandings and sloth combine to promote ignorance.Would a similar statement on the Traditional Latin Mass have merit?
Actually, you could not say that; you could only say that if the OF accomplished the same as the TLM and then became corrupted/misused/abused/etc. Right from the start, the lax rubrics and weak theology of the OF helped to weaken the faith of the people so it is difficult to compare it to the Church itself, which when founded and when it became legally protected under Constantine went on to revitalize a continent and save a civilization.You could as well ask, “If Christ gave us the Catholic Church in AD 33, how do you account for the Inquisition, Crusades, simony, witch burnings and sex scandals?” The Church is not the sum of its scandals, sinful people in the Church caused the scandals, as I’m sure you’d acknowledge. Just like the “NO” (Ordinary Form) is not irreverence and inappropriate celebrations, sinful (or ignorant) people choose to celebrate it irreverently and inappropriately.
Why a lot of the changes were made, I don’t know; I wish some of the changes hadn’t happened. But some I can certainly understand. For example, proclaiming the readings (and having more of them) facing the people (as per the new rubrics and GIRM) and in the vernacular (permitted under the new rubrics and GIRM) so that they can hear and understand the Scripture proclaimed each day. Even having parts of the Ordinary in the vernacular (though there’s much greater argument for having that in Latin). The Prayers of the Faithful with petitions specific to the congregation and the day. Having people actually hear more of the Mass prayers (Latin or vernacular) - I get chills (in a good way) when I hear the words of Consecration, as opposed to reading them off a page. Having the people - as a rule rather than an exception - say some parts like the Et cum spiritu tuo, Confiteor, Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium, Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, & Sanctus rather than just the servers or choir.But if the Latin Rite already has a “reverent” Mass, why does it create another one? Did it really require modernization? Just trying to follow your logic here.
Ultimately a valid Mass is a valid Mass, so they do accomplish the same in that sense. Of course, validity is not the only important aspect of the Mass, but it is one of the most important! There are very reverent OF Masses out there as you note, although not many as there should be - but a Eucharistic Liturgy doesn’t have to look precisely like an Extraordinary Form Mass in order to be reverent, either. As much as I love Latin, ad orientem, kneeling to receive, chant, and so on, I’ve seen many English, said, versus populum Masses where people stood to receive that were nonetheless reverent.Actually, you could not say that; you could only say that if the OF accomplished the same as the TLM and then became corrupted/misused/abused/etc. Right from the start, the lax rubrics and weak theology of the OF helped to weaken the faith of the people so it is difficult to compare it to the Church itself, which when founded and when it became legally protected under Constantine went on to revitalize a continent and save a civilization.
Of course the OF can be said with severe reverence if the proper approach is taken. Too much hinges on that if and we’ve seen the fallout of it over the past 40 years.
Are you saying the TLM can NOT be said irreverently? I hope not, because of course it can. My dad loves to tell of a pastor from his youth that would celebrate a Sunday Mass faster than any NASCAR racer at Daytona. The priest clearly did not say or pray the latin reverently, he simply raced through it. My dad isn’t the only person of his generation I know who would say that. It may be easier to celebrate the OF poorly, but that doesn’t mean the EF is in and of itself impervious to irreverence.Of course the OF can be said with severe reverence if the proper approach is taken. Too much hinges on that if and we’ve seen the fallout of it over the past 40 years.
Of course; so long as matter, form, and intent are present and a validly-ordained priest is celebrating, the Mass is valid, no matter how ugly the church or slovenly-dressed the parishioners or how little folks genuflect before the tabernacle or how many people handle the sacred vessels or jib-jab before and after Mass or what sort of clothes the priest wears while officiating or if the crucifix has been removed or whatever else we can point to in many modernist churches.Ultimately a valid Mass is a valid Mass, so they do accomplish the same in that sense. Of course, validity is not the only important aspect of the Mass, but it is one of the most important! There are very reverent OF Masses out there as you note, although not many as there should be - but a Eucharistic Liturgy doesn’t have to look precisely like an Extraordinary Form Mass in order to be reverent, either. As much as I love Latin, ad orientem, kneeling to receive, chant, and so on, I’ve seen many English, said, versus populum Masses where people stood to receive that were nonetheless reverent.
The theology of the two forms of the Holy Sacrifice are the same - although admittedly in some ways the EF is more precise and eloquent. But there’s a line somewhere between being precise and eloquent and being wordy and repetitious. I’m not sure where that line is. (In fairness, in reference to the Ordinary Form, there’s also a line between “noble simplicity” and minimalism and I’m not sure where that line is, either.)
Sure, the TLM can be said irreverently - all the priest has to do is not care. But, the TLM requires more and enjoins more, and permits less slacking, than the OF. These are rubrical issues, of course, but even the most seemingly-insignificant rubric and rule had a purpose.Are you saying the TLM can NOT be said irreverently? I hope not, because of course it can. My dad loves to tell of a pastor from his youth that would celebrate a Sunday Mass faster than any NASCAR racer at Daytona. The priest clearly did not say or pray the latin reverently, he simply raced through it. My dad isn’t the only person of his generation I know who would say that. It may be easier to celebrate the OF poorly, but that doesn’t mean the EF is in and of itself impervious to irreverence.
I don’t think anyone does. But perhaps this statement by Paul VI in 1968 provides a clue:Why a lot of the changes were made, I don’t know;
“The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-demolition. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions that matured in the great sessions of the Council. But … one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church were destroying herself.”
Looks spurious. Source?I don’t think anyone does. But perhaps this statement by Paul VI in 1968 provides a clue:
Well in my way of thinking is it a new Mass? Well, it is and ins’t at the same time . As put so well put in post 115 it shifts attention from a sacrifice to merly a communion service. I really would rather have TLM but the new translation set for Advent 2011 gives me hope (if done as written) with all chants and rubics I could live with it if I could not attend TLM.Why a lot of the changes were made, I don’t know; I wish some of the changes hadn’t happened. But some I can certainly understand. For example, proclaiming the readings (and having more of them) facing the people (as per the new rubrics and GIRM) and in the vernacular (permitted under the new rubrics and GIRM) so that they can hear and understand the Scripture proclaimed each day. Even having parts of the Ordinary in the vernacular (though there’s much greater argument for having that in Latin). The Prayers of the Faithful with petitions specific to the congregation and the day. Having people actually hear more of the Mass prayers (Latin or vernacular) - I get chills (in a good way) when I hear the words of Consecration, as opposed to reading them off a page. Having the people - as a rule rather than an exception - say some parts like the Et cum spiritu tuo, Confiteor, Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium, Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, & Sanctus rather than just the servers or choir.
Unfortunately, the good was generally implemented with lots of bad (abuses) or unneeded and not preferable (some of the other changes to the Missal or to what was permitted). But that doesn’t make the good changes bad. And it’s not a new Mass, it’s a new form of the one Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Ultimately a valid Mass is a valid Mass, so they do accomplish the same in that sense. Of course, validity is not the only important aspect of the Mass, but it is one of the most important! There are very reverent OF Masses out there as you note, although not many as there should be - but a Eucharistic Liturgy doesn’t have to look precisely like an Extraordinary Form Mass in order to be reverent, either. As much as I love Latin, ad orientem, kneeling to receive, chant, and so on, I’ve seen many English, said, versus populum Masses where people stood to receive that were nonetheless reverent.
The theology of the two forms of the Holy Sacrifice are the same - although admittedly in some ways the EF is more precise and eloquent. But there’s a line somewhere between being precise and eloquent and being wordy and repetitious. I’m not sure where that line is. (In fairness, in reference to the Ordinary Form, there’s also a line between “noble simplicity” and minimalism and I’m not sure where that line is, either.)
Cranmer’s Mass may have been on the mind of a few, I’m sure. But the way everything played out in the 60’s with all the mistranslations and misinterpretations and all the other Babel-related events, it is really no wonder things went the way they did. The NO wasn’t drawn up overnight as Vatican II never ordered a new Mass. However, even during the council, discipline was quickly disappearing. Priests, bishops, and now laypeople started playing fast and loose with the liturgy (among other things). Over some 20 canons were formed and there was no uniformity anymore from parish to parish, one Sunday to the next. There was literally liturgical chaos. Even the definition of Mass changed. The Pope had to promulgate a new Mass, if nothing else, for some stability in the liturgy. So what came out wasn’t what people could call perfect but it worked for a time anyway.Why were the changes made? Well, if the reformers were influenced by ecumenism and deliberately wanted a version of Cranmer’s Mass, the changes make sense.
Cranmer’s Mass may have been on the mind of a few, I’m sure. But the way everything played out in the 60’s with all the mistranslations and misinterpretations and all the other Babel-related events, it is really no wonder things went the way they did. The NO wasn’t drawn up overnight
By church standards it was close to “overnight”. Annibale Bugnini, the author of the Novus Ordo, was placed in a position which enabled him to exert a decisive influence on the future of the Catholic Liturgy in 1960.
He was appointed Secretary to the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council. He finished “the Bugnini Schema” & had it approved by the Liturgical Preparatory Commission in the beginning of 1962.
The Liturgy Constitution for which the Council Fathers eventually voted was **substantially identical **to the draft schema which Father Bugnini had steered successfully through the Preparatory Commission.
Vatican II never ordered a new Mass.
Not sure what you mean here. The Council Fathers voted for the Bugnini Schema to become to “Novus Ordo Missae”…the New Order of the Mass.