TLM misconceptions

[magdalina]

As I mentioned, they follow the praxis of the liturgical movement, that is, making too much of a concern with external participation, including integrating things forbidden till that time (e.g., vernacular hymns at low Mass, dialogue low Masses, etc.) There seems to be an inversely proportionate internal and external participation relationship for the vast majority of the laity, unfortunately. We need to foster internal participation at the cost of external, if necessary. The “gold standard,” if there can be one would be the liturgy as it organically developed and was codified by the Council of Trent and preserved (for the most part) up to the late 19th century. I think the best time would be c. 1600-1800, but that could be debated. The Baroque age was the last authentically Catholic age.

Are you saying that “organic” development of the Roman liturgy should have been halted in its tracks at Trent and further development over the next 500 years was unnecessary and undesirable? Obviously, that didn’t happen. If it had, would we not have had Catholics demanding the Novus Ordo 450 years ago?

What I wanted to know, are there groups offering the TLM today whose liturgy IS their strong point. If you know of such a group, who are they, where can one assist their mass?

In your view, what makes one 2010 TLM superior to another? Is it your position that a Trent-era re-enactment, performed in a theater, by professional actors, should be scored higher than a living TLM offered in a church, by real clergy, assisted by the faithful?

Just asking.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Are you saying that “organic” development of the Roman liturgy should have been stopped in its tracks by Trent and further development over the next 500 years was unneccessary and undesirable? Obviously, that didn’t happen.

It did happen. By definition, there could be no more organic development of the rites of the Church after Trent. All changes had to be promulgated by the Pope.

If it had, would we not have had Catholics demanding the Novus Ordo 450 years ago?

I don’t understand this question.

What I wanted to know, are there groups offering the TLM today whose liturgy IS their strong point. If you know of such a group, who are they, where can one assist their mass?

Absolutely, the Institute of Christ the King. institute-christ-king.org/ The Fraternity of St. Peter is also good, but, unfortunately individual priests can be hit-or-miss.

In your view, what makes one 2010 TLM superior to another?

Whether it is in accord with perennial liturgical principles. Dom Guéranger explains these in his Institutiones Liturgiques. The most obvious differences will be in aesthetics and whether the celebrant is doing what he can to foster devotion in the faithful or just doing what it says in the book because it says it in the book (as though the external ceremonies were not there for the edification of the celebrant and those assisting at Mass). Beautiful vestments and accoutrement, a beautiful church, and the like will also highlight the dignity of what is the most dignified and most sacred thing on this earth.

 

[SunnaB16]

I assure you that people in every generation and in every culture have had this thought.

Its worse now, though, because of mass communication/the internet/video sceens everywhere, plus science......those poor superstitious beggars in mediaeval times (for example) had none of that: no New York Times or Huff n Puff Post, NCR etc. Its so sad!

I agree with you here. But let’s not try and intimate that the EF hasn’t changed over the years and the celebration of Mass or at the very least the celebration around the Mass hasn’t been different in other cultures throughout the centuries. It has.

There was change, all right, but it was slow. The NO changes seemed to be change for its own sake. "Give em an inch......" Some of us were knocked off balance, and thats where we stayed for decades. There was a series of KOs in quick succession.

It was a relief to discover (in the mid 1990s) that the claim: “Rome made me do it!” was a lie. im talking about architectural and liturgical abuses here, not the Novus Ordo, as such. im not suggesting the NO should be banned, either; just cleaned up.
By the way, knowing nothing about the others, these comments are aimed at the Latin Rite only.

Smashing High Altars and statues etc was not ordered by Rome, but by self-appointed “liturgists”, aided by their mates. A small group which knows exactly what it wants can get its way. It happened in 1917…

 

[magdalina]

It did happen. By definition, there could be no more organic development of the rites of the Church after Trent. All changes had to be promulgated by the Pope.

So, subsequent Roman Missals promulgated from the 1600’s through 1962, do not document the “organic” development of the Mass?

Absolutely, the Institute of Christ the King. institute-christ-king.org/ The Fraternity of St. Peter is also good, but, unfortunately individual priests can be hit-or-miss.

These groups offer the Extraordinary Form from the 1962 Missal, not a replica of the 1570’s vintage “Tridentine” Mass of Pius V, right?

Whether it is in accord with perennial liturgical principles. Dom Guéranger explains these in his Institutiones Liturgiques. The most obvious differences will be in aesthetics and whether the celebrant is doing what he can to foster devotion in the faithful or just doing what it says in the book because it says it in the book (as though the external ceremonies were not there for the edification of the celebrant and those assisting at Mass). Beautiful vestments and accoutrement, a beautiful church, and the like will also highlight the dignity of what is the most dignified and most sacred thing on this earth.

Here, you seem to be describing priests “tuning” their masses for the purpose of fostering devotion in the faithful on a local level. Is that not a form of organic development?

Are you aware of an authentic Tridentine Mass of Pius V being offered ANYWHERE in 2010?

 

[The_Bucket]

It was a relief to discover (in the mid 1990s) that the claim: “Rome made me do it!” was a lie. im talking about architectural and liturgical abuses here, not the Novus Ordo, as such. im not suggesting the NO should be banned, either; just cleaned up.
By the way, knowing nothing about the others, these comments are aimed at the Latin Rite only.

Smashing High Altars and statues etc was not ordered by Rome, but by self-appointed “liturgists”, aided by their mates. A small group which knows exactly what it wants can get its way. It happened in 1917…

I’ll agree with you here. But you should note that these abuses were mostly limited to the United States and we’re in agreement that they were due to left-wing and frankly rebellious pastors and bishops in this country. Because the people did not digest and understand Vatican II for quite some time, they were able to pull the “Rome says this” out anytime they wanted to make changes to suit their own designs. Personally I think the Internet age has made all of us activists in some way or another because information is now so easily accessible. And that can be a very good thing for the Church here in the US as congregations will be able to fact-check moves by pastors and bishops that seem out of order or find information on how to report priests who may be leading their flock slowly away from some of Church doctrine or are outright being abusive.

A more engaged and informed laity is certainly good and frankly I think it has helped move the Church in a more traditional direction in a great number of communities in a short period of time.

 

[The_Bucket]

Smarter? No. Better educated? YES!! My secular University studies were a “piece of cake” after attending the Academy of the Sacred Heart for 4 years. We not only learned our subjects well, we learned good study habits, we learned self-reliance & the importance of attention to detail. We learned self-discipline & the value of making good choices. We learned that we mattered to God & that is the basis of a healthy self-image. I can’t give enough credit to the nuns who taught me, who were my role models, who expected more of me than I ever expected of myself.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

So, subsequent Roman Missals promulgated from the 1600’s through 1962, do not document the “organic” development of the Mass?

No missal published after Quo Primum (1570) can be an organic development. It only could be changed by decree of the Pope. This is not an organic development. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad change; it just means it is changing differently from how it did until Quo Primum. There were lots of good changes during and after that time, but they were all negligible in the long run. It had to do only with the calendar (the celebration of feasts, rules for which are transferred, additions of feasts, etc.)

These groups offer the Extraordinary Form from the 1962 Missal, not a replica of the 1570’s vintage “Tridentine” Mass of Pius V, right?

I never said that today we ought to use the missal published by St. Pius V. The only missal that is approved for use is the 1962 Missal. The Institute historically has had at least implicit permission to use older forms (pre-Bugnini) of the missal, particularly for the manner of celebrating solemn Mass and for Holy Week. I am saddened at the news that I have heard that this may no longer be the case since their definitive canonical erection as a society of apostolic life of pontifical rite.

Here, you seem to be describing priests “tuning” their masses for the purpose of fostering devotion in the faithful on a local level. Is that not a form of organic development?

Not tuning them for the faithful, just saying Mass as it has always been said, receiving the tradition that has been passed down (i.e., not developing but preserving). Whatever you want to call it, it is not organic development of the liturgy. Whether someone wears a chasuble made in poor quality by a woman from the parish or one from Gammarelli or from someone who does an even better job than they, doesn’t have to do with development of the liturgy. These are all accidentals to the rite itself.

Are you aware of an authentic Tridentine Mass of Pius V being offered ANYWHERE in 2010?

It depends what you mean by Mass of St. Pius V. According to the missal and calendar published in 1570? No, and I’m not advocating that we do that or that priests would be permitted to do that. A form that existed before the 20th century liturgical movement liturgy-by-committee? No entirely, but many traditionalist unapproved groups refuse to use the Bugnini rites and use missals published before the 1950s. I’m not sure if that means before 1945 (when the cappa magna was shortened) or not, but I would assume they would use the older form.

 

[magdalina]

No missal published after Quo Primum (1570) can be an organic development. It only could be changed by decree of the Pope. This is not an organic development. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad change; it just means it is changing differently from how it did until Quo Primum. There were lots of good changes during and after that time, but they were all negligible in the long run. It had to do only with the calendar (the celebration of feasts, rules for which are transferred, additions of feasts, etc.)

I never said that today we ought to use the missal published by St. Pius V. The only missal that is approved for use is the 1962 Missal. The Institute historically has had at least implicit permission to use older forms (pre-Bugnini) of the missal, particularly for the manner of celebrating solemn Mass and for Holy Week. I am saddened at the news that I have heard that this may no longer be the case since their definitive canonical erection as a society of apostolic life of pontifical rite.

Not tuning them for the faithful, just saying Mass as it has always been said, receiving the tradition that has been passed down (i.e., not developing but preserving). Whatever you want to call it, it is not organic development of the liturgy. Whether someone wears a chasuble made in poor quality by a woman from the parish or one from Gammarelli or from someone who does an even better job than they, doesn’t have to do with development of the liturgy. These are all accidentals to the rite itself.

It depends what you mean by Mass of St. Pius V. According to the missal and calendar published in 1570? No, and I’m not advocating that we do that or that priests would be permitted to do that. A form that existed before the 20th century liturgical movement liturgy-by-committee? No entirely, but many traditionalist unapproved groups refuse to use the Bugnini rites and use missals published before the 1950s. I’m not sure if that means before 1945 (when the cappa magna was shortened) or not, but I would assume they would use the older form.

Does “organic development” have a precise definition in canon law? I understand that new missals and the changes contained therein are officially promulgated by decree of the Holy Father. Is it correct to say that the missal officially documents the Holy Father’s approved changes, regardless of where the changes originated?

In post #54, in response to my inquiry on how a group celebrated the TLM, you offered this description:

Traditional Mass, ideas and praxis of the liturgical movement.

What does this mean in the real world? In what ways would this produce a different (better or worse) TLM than one of the other groups (ICK, FSSP) you mentioned as examples? Does it represent a threat to the traditions of the Faith?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Does “organic development” have a precise definition in canon law?

No, it is just a term someone came up with (not sure when) to differentiate the way liturgy developed in the past compared to now. It changed with time and according to circumstances and use (not unlike language). This is no longer the case.

I understand that new missals and the changes contained therein are officially promulgated by decree of the Holy Father. Is it correct to say that the missal officially documents the Holy Father’s approved changes, regardless of where the changes originated?

Yes, but they all originate in his will. He decides to change them, and then he decrees the change. This is why it is not organic. No individual has the rite to adapt the rubrics in any way. The Pope’s will may be influenced by committees, or he may delegate committees to make all the decisions and then just sign off on them at the end (e.g., as happened under Bugnini).

What does this mean in the real world? In what ways would this produce a different (better or worse) TLM than one of the other groups (ICK, FSSP) you mentioned as examples? Does it represent a threat to the traditions of the Faith?

The liturgical movement is a very convoluted entity, and it is hard to grasp the entire meaning of what I said without having a deep knowledge of the liturgy before the liturgical movement and also a deep knowledge of the methods, opinions, and praxis of those involved in the liturgical movement (up to and including the promulgation of the new rites). What does it mean on a practical level? It means that the groups who follow the liturgical movement principles will push you closer and closer to the Novus Ordo mentality, principally ignoring tradition and trying to re-create what “should” have been handed down, most visibly manifest in the exaggerated external participation of the faithful. Yes, this represents a threat to the traditions of the faith, if nothing else than by diluting them and passing them on in a mangled form, to say nothing of removing the foundation of tradition upon which liturgy and the sensus catholicus stand and replacing it with a revisionist and correctionist mentality.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Disclaimer: I haven’t read the last 2 pages of this thread very thoroughly.

I was intending to come on and comment that it is quite possible to not to prefer the TLM and have one’s preference be misconception-free, but, as it is, most of what I would say I will have to say anyway in responding to the quote below (emphasis mine, btw.)

…it is hard to grasp the entire meaning of what I said without having a deep knowledge of the liturgy before the liturgical movement and also a deep knowledge of the methods, opinions, and praxis of those involved in the liturgical movement (up to and including the promulgation of the new rites). What does it mean on a practical level? It means that the groups who follow the liturgical movement principles will push you closer and closer to the Novus Ordo mentality, principally ignoring tradition and trying to re-create what “should” have been handed down, most visibly manifest in the exaggerated external participation of the faithful.

I have seen the above emphasized opinion given out by those who prefer the TLM before and I have never understood it. I, therefore, feel compelled to ask a question that I have yet to have answered by any TLM supporter. I ask it, though, not meaning to be provocative, but because I simply do not understand this position.

I have attended (in one parish and another) the OF in Latin chanted all my life. I have also participated in the Divine Office (Liturgy of the Hours) chanted in the Benedictine tradition.

The Office has been chanted in a “call-&-response” style for more than a thousand years, yet I have never heard anyone argue that the vocal (or external) participation in this other “half” of the Church’s liturgy is “exaggerated” or “excessive.” (Obviously, because to argue that you’d have to go against more than a thousand years of practice and the Father of western monasticism…)

The first time I participated in the Office, it seemed to me as though the liturgy breathed with both “lungs” and shed a tremendous amount of light on the way I pray the Mass. Why, why, is it alright for me, a lay person, to chant the responses in the Office, but “exaggerated” for me to chant the responses at Mass??? I simply do not understand.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I’m not saying that chanting at Mass is necessarily wrong. It’s when someone makes externalism the primary role of the faithful. This has more to do with dialogue, etc., at low Mass rather than at high Mass.

That being said, the faithful did not sing in the office for 1,000 years. The members of the clergy did, and the faithful listened, prayed to themselves, followed along, etc., frequently (though, lamentably, not nearly as much after the Middle Ages and pretty much not at all by the 20th century). For centuries there actually was a prohibition against the laity singing in the church at all, whether at Mass or at the office. In reality, it just isn’t possible to make it work in a way that is beautiful and ordered to the proper end. There is too much strain on trying to “sing along” rather than in praying what is being sung. This is especially true at the office. Even those who are well-trained have difficulty with this, and there is no way you could fittingly get a Cathedral full of tone-deaf Americans to do it, for better or worse.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I’m not saying that chanting at Mass is necessarily wrong. It’s when someone makes externalism the primary role of the faithful. This has more to do with dialogue, etc., at low Mass rather than at high Mass.

I’m not sure I understand how chanting the prayers is any different than speaking the responses (e.g. at a Low Mass) in terms of “externalism.”

Honestly, it sounds to me as though many TLM supporters (not you in particular, but since you’ve made some of the same arguments, I bring this up) think that (only in the context of Mass, 'cause they’d argue the opposite about the rosary) since external participation does not guarantee internal participation, that somehow speaking or chanting the prayers of the Mass is inimical to praying the Mass.

Which, again, I do not understand, as those same people would argue that physical posture affects internal participation positively (i.e. kneeling is good- so why not praying aloud?) and that vocal participation does not and should not be impediment to internal participation in the case of the Rosary (where I think they would say the external participation, was, again, an aid to prayer…)

That being said, the faithful did not sing in the office for 1,000 years. The members of the clergy did, and the faithful listened, prayed to themselves, followed along, etc., frequently (though, lamentably, not nearly as much after the Middle Ages and pretty much not at all by the 20th century).

The faithful may not have sung the Office, but monks and nuns are not clergy. They are lay people, consecrated, but lay people. Now, it is true that in female Benedictine monasteries before Vatican II, there was a two-tiered “social” system wherein there were choir nuns and “lay” sisters. It is my understanding that the lay sisters were not bound to sing the Office, nonetheless, they were certainly not prohibited from singing it.

In reality, it just isn’t possible to make it work in a way that is beautiful and ordered to the proper end. There is too much strain on trying to “sing along” rather than in praying what is being sung. This is especially true at the office. Even those who are well-trained have difficulty with this, and there is no way you could fittingly get a Cathedral full of tone-deaf Americans to do it, for better or worse.

There are too many things to respond to here, so first and foremost:

The bolded part is what gives me major cognitive dissonance. I am not at home and not near my books, but the idea that the Office must be “beautiful” (like a performance) strikes me as very anti-Benedictine (and thus anti traditional.) I’m sure St. Benedict would argue that one should work to remedy the deficits in one’s singing ability, but the Office is not a performance and the beauty is not in the sound but in the prayer of the singers.

Second, in terms of singing, basic chant (the Psalms, responses, etc.) is not difficult at all. Propers (especially for feasts) are a whole 'nother story, but usually designated singers would sing those, even in a monastery.

 

[mick321]

I’m not saying that chanting at Mass is necessarily wrong. **It’s when someone makes externalism the primary role of the faithful. **This has more to do with dialogue, etc., at low Mass rather than at high Mass.

That being said, the faithful did not sing in the office for 1,000 years. The members of the clergy did, and the faithful listened, prayed to themselves, followed along, etc., frequently (though, lamentably, not nearly as much after the Middle Ages and pretty much not at all by the 20th century). For centuries there actually was a prohibition against the laity singing in the church at all, whether at Mass or at the office. In reality, it just isn’t possible to make it work in a way that is beautiful and ordered to the proper end. There is too much strain on trying to “sing along” rather than in praying what is being sung. This is especially true at the office. Even those who are well-trained have difficulty with this, and there is no way you could fittingly get a Cathedral full of tone-deaf Americans to do it, for better or worse.

From the Early Church through the 1700’s, the norm was that lay faithful in the Latin rite participated in sung high masses by alternating verses with the the clerical schola and responding to the sacred ministers.

The low mass was not intended to be offered publicly. It was designed to make it possible for a priest, in private and alone, to confect the sacrament single-handedly.

The silent latin mass, where the faithful admitted as mere spectators, is a direct lineal descendant of the private low mass. It is an oddity, not a true tradition of the Catholic Faith, nor is it useful for the public worship and glorification of God.

The sung high mass is now and has always been the norm for the TLM.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I’m not sure I understand how chanting the prayers is any different than speaking the responses (e.g. at a Low Mass) in terms of “externalism.”

It’s a lot more difficult to speak in common than it is to sing in common (that is, without breaking up the responses into a robotic recitation rather than a prayerful speaking of them).

since external participation does not guarantee internal participation, that somehow speaking or chanting the prayers of the Mass is inimical to praying the Mass.

Not necessarily, though this can be the case. It can also be the case with the rosary. Many people say the rosary without paying attention to what they are doing.

Which, again, I do not understand, as those same people would argue that physical posture affects internal participation positively (i.e. kneeling is good- so why not praying aloud?) and that vocal participation does not and should not be impediment to internal participation in the case of the Rosary (where I think they would say the external participation, was, again, an aid to prayer…)

It’s not necessarily an impediment, but for most people it is. What’s more, see below concerning the “bottom line.”

The faithful may not have sung the Office, but monks and nuns are not clergy. They are lay people, consecrated, but lay people.

Yes, they are religious, though some monks are clerics. We were speaking of the church, though, not a monastery. That is a different situation. (St. Francis de Sales makes this same distinction.)

It is my understanding that the lay sisters were not bound to sing the Office, nonetheless, they were certainly not prohibited from singing it.

That’s right, and there is nothing wrong with that. Those who are properly trained and are in the situation to do so becomingly (that is, in the choir, rather than trying to sing together with them from the nave of a Cathedral or large church). Even in small churches and even in small convent chapels, I have consistently on a personal basis experienced the difficulty of trying to sing together with the sisters from the nave, even though we were no more than 20-30 feet away.

The bolded part is what gives me major cognitive dissonance. I am not at home and not near my books, but the idea that the Office must be “beautiful” (like a performance) strikes me as very anti-Benedictine (and thus anti traditional.)

The Benedictine office isn’t the standard of tradition for a parish. What’s more, the very purpose of music is to be beautiful and be uplifting to the clergy and faithful. Something that is ugly or poorly done is not worthy for worship of God. There was some sort of decree from the English bishops in either the 19th or 20th century that basically said: stop with all the poorly done high Masses (musically, ceremoniously, decorously); a low Mass is much better than a haphazard high Mass.

I’m sure St. Benedict would argue that one should work to remedy the deficits in one’s singing ability, but the Office is not a performance and the beauty is not in the sound but in the prayer of the singers.

If this were the only concern, there would be no reason to sing the words. Singing lifts the soul; he who sings well prays twice, as St. Austin says. He who sings poorly… shouldn’t sing.

Second, in terms of singing, basic chant (the Psalms, responses, etc.) is not difficult at all. Propers (especially for feasts) are a whole 'nother story, but usually designated singers would sing those, even in a monastery.

There are also antiphons that people who are trained in Gregorian chant and sing them year after year still can’t get right. This is even true of many of the psalm tones, especially for the Magnificat. Go to any traditional seminary to observe this phenomenon today. Monks sing propers with the entire community; it is a communal office, not just for those who are the best singers. That is why it is simple enough with proper training and practice, not to mention hearing them each year.

The bottom line, and this suffices to answer mick, is that the tradition of the Church is something received. It is what is handed down. The low mass has been handed down as is. The other practices of the Church relating to public worship have been handed down. They are to be received, not corrected. Dom Guéranger understood this. More modern “liturgists” do not.

 

[Layman]

I think part of the problem is that very few Catholics can admit that the Church screwed up, big time, since the 1940s to 2007. It has mirrored the fad for change and newness, instead of being a beacon of the eternal. It has let liberal academics dictate our worship.

 

[SunnaB16]

I’ll agree with you here. But you should note that these abuses were mostly limited to the United States and we’re in agreement that they were due to left-wing and frankly rebellious pastors and bishops in this country.

Sadly, it happened in this country (Australia), as well. Australians are like a pack of sheep! New Zealand and others copped it too: eg how many Bishops` Conferences supported Humanae Vitae? >>>zero? How many dissented? That was a turning point.

Because the people did not digest and understand Vatican II for quite some time, they were able to pull the “Rome says this” out anytime they wanted to make changes to suit their own designs. Personally I think the Internet age has made all of us activists in some way or another because information is now so easily accessible.*** And that can be a very good thing for the Church here in the US as congregations will be able to fact-check moves by pastors and bishops that seem out of order or find information on how to report priests who may be leading their flock slowly away from some of Church doctrine or are outright being abusive.***

Too right! They can`t hoodwink all of us forever.

A more engaged and informed laity is certainly good and frankly I think it has helped move the Church in a more traditional direction in a great number of communities in a short period of time.

YEP! And it won`t be stopped.

Layman:
The false prophets of Change.
Those “academics” may be starting to feel a bit jittery.

VetA:
Theres no doubt that CITH has led to an overall drop in reverence due to a loss of belief in The Real Presence. EMHCs are often just an excuse for more lay participation. Also another cause of a loss of belief in The Real Presence, in spite of the "The Body of Christ": "Amen" bit. If unconsecrated hands can touch The Sacred Species, then, whats so sacred about It?

 

[CradleCath]

SunnaB16;6819769]Some one told me that the average age of folks who attend the TLM is 38…and falling. At the one i attend (FSSP), there are very few walking sticks, but many young families and young single people. Outside the church, you have to be careful not to step on any toddlers.

It doesnt have to be a "Clown Mass" to drive a person to the TLM**. **Some can "offer it up", but some of us cant. It`s no good exiting the church with smoke curling from your nostrils.

**By the way, National Parks are a great idea: they help preserve parts of the world from the ravages of “progress”. **Future generations will be able to look at a world free of frenzied change. Ditto for the TLM… The young people attracted to its sense of timelessness have assured the EF of a healthy future. It`s the way the Church Herself is at Her heart: an immovable Rock, heedless of the direction of the wind and the waves.

In spite of so much "information:
Todays Western society must be the most ill-informed, bigoted, stupid (in a non-IQ sense), conceited etc society in history. Its full of itself, so it`s full of nothing, and will have to implode.

Excellent message!!!
You are certainly correct in your observation that it doesn’t take a “clown Mass” to drive people away from the N.O. For me, the use of EM’s, CITH, lay Lectors, the NOISE, NOISE, noise, the MOVING ABOUT, etc. create an atmosphere that is NOT condusive to prayer…to the actual “connecting” to God, with our whole heart, our whole mind & our whole soul.

Cardinal Ratzinger, now our Pope, wrote in the intro to the Spirit of the Liturgy:

“Let us become always more clearly conscious that the liturgy also implies silence. To God who speaks we respond singing and praying, but the greatest mystery, which goes beyond all words, calls us also to be silent. It must undoubtedly be a full silence, more than an absence of words and action. We expect from the liturgy that it provide for us the positive silence in which we find ourselves.”

The TLM. is the sacrifice of the New Law in which Christ, through the ministry of the priest,** offers Himself to God **in an unbloody manner under the appearance of bread & wine.

Annibale Bugnini’s Mass is a celebration of the Last Supper, a communal meal, a “brotherhood” thing. It’s purpose…to make the Catholic Church acceptable to Protestants. NOT to the Trinity, but to non-Catholics. The Novus Ordo is strikingly similar to Cranmer’s Mass.
neumannpress.com/crangodor1.html

What today’s society seems incapable of knowing is the fact that God DEMANDED such a Sacrifice…that of His own Son…so that the gates of heaven would be open to those who followed His Laws. They can’t seem to conceive of a God Who needed to be appeased so badly that only the sacrifice of the perfect victim (His own Son) would do. At the same time, while it should have been US on that cross, for we are the sinners, the Father gave His Son…thus both of them are included in this Sacrifice.

When Christ…at the Last Supper…said “Do this in remembrance of Me”…He was speaking of His broken Body, in the form of bread; His Blood represented by the wine…NOT the Supper, but the Sacrifice. If I haven’t made myself clear (& I probably haven’t, as feelings as strong as mine are hard to convey to others), here is a quote from Bishop Sheen’s “Calvary & the Mass”:

“Picture then the High Priest Christ leaving the sacristy of heaven for the altar of Calvary. He has already put on the vestment of our human nature, the maniple of our suffering, the stole of priesthood, the chasuble of the Cross. Calvary is His cathedral; the rock of Calvary is the Altar Stone; the sun turning to red is His sanctuary lamp; Mary and John are the living side altars; the host is His body; the wine is His blood. He is upright as Priest, yet He is prostate as Victim. His Mass is about to begin.”

 

[Layman]

What today’s society seems incapable of knowing is the fact that God DEMANDED such a Sacrifice…that of His own Son…so that the gates of heaven would be open to those who followed His Laws. They can’t seem to conceive of a God Who needed to be appeased so badly that only the sacrifice of the perfect victim (His own Son) would do. At the same time, while it should have been US on that cross, for we are the sinners, the Father gave His Son…thus both of them are included in this Sacrifice.

When Christ…at the Last Supper…said “Do this in remembrance of Me”…He was speaking of His broken Body, in the form of bread; His Blood represented by the wine…NOT the Supper, but the Sacrifice.

Well said, sir. What a tragedy, what a gross impertinence, to banalise such a thing.

 

[CradleCath]

Are you saying that “organic” development of the Roman liturgy should have been halted in its tracks at Trent and further development over the next 500 years was unnecessary and undesirable? Obviously, that didn’t happen. If it had, would we not have had Catholics demanding the Novus Ordo 450 years ago?

#1. No Catholics were “demanding the Novus Ordo 450 years ago”. In fact, very few Catholic were demanding the Novus Ordo 40-50 yrs. ago. The ones who were, were mostly western European intellectuals who considered themselves “theologians”.
When the guns of WWI were silenced…“Liberation theology” made it’s debut & when WWII was over, it began to be just a bit too close to Marxism. Later it was used to lay the basis for the subsequent events and evolutions associated with Vatican II. A good book on the subject is:
“The Western European Liberation Theology”.
oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/religion/9780199204496/toc.html

Of course, good, optimistic Pope John XXIII thought that a Council would take care of the grumblings he heard from these men. It didn’t.

As for your remark, “Are you suggesting that Roman liturgy should have been halted in its tracks at Trent and further development over the next 500 years was unnecessary and undesirable”…

I’m not sure to whom you posted this question, but the answer is…of course the liturgy was not frozen in time by the Council of Trent.
In 1604 by Pope Clement VIII, gave us a revised edition of the Vulgate. The Bible texts in the Missal of Pope Pius V did not correspond exactly to the new Vulgate, and so Clement edited and revised Pope Pius V’s Missal, making alterations both in the scriptural texts and in other matters, all were minor changes.

Pope Leo XIII also issued some small changes, not profound enough to merit having the papal bull of its promulgation included in the Missal, as the bulls of 1604 and 1634 were. One of these was the addition of the Leonine prayers after Mass. As new saints were canonized, new feast days were added, etc., etc. …

**NO ONE rewrote the Mass until Annibale Bugnini, **who shortly before he was banished to Iran, wrote the Bugnini Schema which was the liturgical draft document that wound up being nearly identical to what is now known as the Novus Ordo.

In your view, what makes one 2010 TLM superior to another? Is it your position that a Trent-era re-enactment, performed in a theater, by professional actors, should be scored higher than a living TLM offered in a church, by real clergy, assisted by the faithful?

Just asking.

A Mass “performed” in a theater, by professional actors"? Is this kind of exaggerated sarcasm really necessary?

 

[magdalina]

#1. No Catholics were “demanding the Novus Ordo 450 years ago”. In fact, very few Catholic were demanding the Novus Ordo 40-50 yrs. ago. The ones who were, were mostly western European intellectuals who considered themselves “theologians”.

[It may be useful to note that my comments were made during the course of an exchange with IntregraCatholic. The discussion begins with post #56 and continues thu 61-62-64-67-68. You may wish to review them at your convenience.]

When the Missal or 1970 was promulgated, the Novus Ordo Mass spread across the Catholic world like wildfire. Whether it was demanded by all Catholics is immaterial. It was demanded by Bishops, Cardinals, future Popes and the Holy Father himself. It was quickly accepted, praised and defended by the vast majority of Catholics. It was the far and away - the ordinary form - long before it was declared The Ordinary Form.

As for your remark, “Are you suggesting that Roman liturgy should have been halted in its tracks at Trent and further development over the next 500 years was unnecessary and undesirable”…

I’m not sure to whom you posted this question, but the answer is…of course the liturgy was not frozen in time by the Council of Trent. In 1604 by Pope Clement VIII, gave us a revised edition of the Vulgate. The Bible texts in the Missal of Pope Pius V did not correspond exactly to the new Vulgate, and so Clement edited and revised Pope Pius V’s Missal, making alterations both in the scriptural texts and in other matters, all were minor changes. Pope Leo XIII also issued some small changes, not profound enough to merit having the papal bull of its promulgation included in the Missal, as the bulls of 1604 and 1634 were. One of these was the addition of the Leonine prayers after Mass. As new saints were canonized, new feast days were added, etc., etc. …

**Thank You. As you have stated, the so-called Tridentine Mass, codified in 1570, continued to develop across a series of five Missals and 400 years. **

NO ONE rewrote the Mass until Annibale Bugnini, who shortly before he was banished to Iran, wrote the Bugnini Schema which was the liturgical draft document that wound up being nearly identical to what is now known as the Novus Ordo.

I have two 1962 Missals, one by Baronius Press, the other from Angelus Press. So far, I have been unable to find much evidence of Mr. Bugnini’s contribution to either. His trip to Iran and his involvement in the Novus Ordo seem of place in this discussion of the TLM.

Is it your position that a Trent-era re-enactment, performed in a theater, by professional actors, should be scored higher than a living TLM offered in a church, by real clergy, assisted by the faithful?