TLM Resources

[malphono]

I do not see the ‘very different’ nature of the new mass. The only not optional new in 1970 was the prayers of offertory, and the definition of the new lectionary which previously (since 1967) was experimental. Please tell me details, what else was new in the Mass as it is defined and not optional.

For one thing, those very “options” are themselves a novelty.

I can imagine that in some parishes or may be dioceses some traditionalist did not wanted to introduce the new, and thus omitted the required catechesis, but there was extensive catechesis in other places.

In most places in the US, there was little (if any) catechesis.

 

[laszlo]

For one thing, those very “options” are themselves a novelty.
.

Woud you so kind toi explain it in detals. Since the thirties (when people started to read the the prayers of the mass) it was the commonplace that the offertory prayers are:

• duplications
• controversial (as if the priest food offering would bring the ‘innocence’ for him

What was wrong with changing that?

Also what is wrong with the fuller readings of the Holy Scriptures?

There was any documented protest in the US against an unprepared sudden change? (magazines, newspaper reader letters etc)

 

[laszlo]

For one thing, those very “options” are themselves a novelty.
.

Would you so kind to explain it in details. Since the thirties (when people started to read the the prayers of the mass) it was the commonplace that the offertory prayers are:

• duplications
• controversial (as if the priest food offering would bring the ‘innocence’ for him

What was wrong with changing that?

Also what is wrong with the fuller readings of the Holy Scriptures?

There was any documented protest in the US against an unprepared sudden change? (magazines, newspaper reader letters etc)

 

[malphono]

Would you so kind to explain it in details. Since the thirties (when people started to read the the prayers of the mass) it was the commonplace that the offertory prayers are:

• duplications
• controversial (as if the priest food offering would bring the ‘innocence’ for him

What was wrong with changing that?

Also what is wrong with the fuller readings of the Holy Scriptures?

Please note that I said nothing about the Offertory Prayers. I thought it was clear that I was speaking to your comment about “options” …

In any case, we’ve been through this before in regard to the Offertory Prayers, so there’s no point in revisiting it. My position remains unchanged.

If you insist on a comment on the lectionary, I’ve little to say except that, at least for the festal and sanctoral cycles, I find fixed readings preferable and far more logical. The number of readings (whether 2 or 3 or more) is immaterial to me.

There was any documented protest in the US against an unprepared sudden change? (magazines, newspaper reader letters etc)

 

[ProVobis]

The number of readings (whether 2 or 3 or more) is immaterial to me.

Me too. One good memorable reading repeated every year can probably be just as spritual as three shorter readings every three years or ten different verses repeated every ten years.

 

[laszlo]

In any case, we’ve been through this before in regard to the Offertory Prayers, so there’s no point in revisiting it. My position remains unchanged.

I am sorry I had tyo miss your answer. I do not rememner anything just generalities like this answer above

If you insist on a comment on the lectionary, I’ve little to say except that, at least for the festal and sanctoral cycles, I find fixed readings preferable and far more logical. The number of readings (whether 2 or 3 or more) is immaterial to me.

In the Catholic Church About the liturgy the Church makes the decision not your taste or my taste. or anyone’s taste. This is being Catholic.

As for the options the liturgy was under the full control of the local bishops until the St Pius V reform. He put one choice obligatory with very few and rare options. The Church decided again to make the options wider. What is your problem with that in details?

 

[laszlo]

Me too. One good memorable reading repeated every year can probably be just as spritual as three shorter readings every three years or ten different verses repeated every ten years.

God gave us the full scriptures as His word. Every sentence is His word. The Church decided that to read it as much full as possible is better. No of us is qualified to know it better. Christ put Peter and his vicar in change. This is to be Catholic.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church decided that to read it as much full as possible is better.

So has the attention span of the average Churchgoer been increased to the point where he can absorb more that is read to him or her at Mass, if that’s really the case? I don’t see any evidence of increased knowledge of scripture.

 

[malphono]

As for the options the liturgy was under the full control of the local bishops until the St Pius V reform. He put one choice obligatory with very few and rare options. The Church decided again to make the options wider. What is your problem with that in details?

That liturgy was “under the full control of the local bishops” is not exactly correct, but I’m not about to go into details. Anyway, yes, PP S Pius V standardized the Roman Rite and it was done for a reason. The reason it was done is just as valid today as it was then, but never mind that. I think it’s time for me to exit this thread.

 

[laszlo]

Anyway, yes, PP S Pius V standardized the Roman Rite and it was done for a reason. The reason it was done is just as valid today as it was then, but never mind that. .

Jesus Christ gave binding and loosing power of the Church, and for Catholics that is the rule above the reason.

 

[laszlo]

So has the attention span of the average Churchgoer been increased to the point where he can absorb more that is read to him or her at Mass, if that’s really the case? I don’t see any evidence of increased knowledge of scripture.

My educated guess the the knowledge of the Scriptures increased,

In the good old times the majority of the sermons were not homilies, but about selected theological and moral subjects, without scriptural references. Above that onbly the Gospel was read in vernacular, and only on some Sunday masses (in the church of my childhood the 6AM and 7AM masses were w/o any Gospel reading or sermon) , also many people were present on the masses at the side altars, where also there was no Gospel reading neither sermon.

There were no Bible studies for the laity. In the grammar school Catechism only the 3rd grade covered some Bible stories, and very few people attended the High School where also only 1 year was about the Scriptures. For adult Catholics no Bible study at all.

In contrast today every churchgoer hears all reading in their own language either in weekdays and Sunday (TLM and new rite alike), and hear homilies about the passages. The TLM in the good old times was not the same as it is now.