TLM vs NOM: some thoughts

  • Thread starter Thread starter RNRobert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
RNRobert:
Continued…

and

Could it be that those who take the trouble to find and attend a Latin Mass have more a more reverent attitude to the Mass to begin with?

Continued next post…
Click to expand...
It could be, but I would propose that the nature of the TLM demands reverence while the nature of the NOM breeds laxity.
 
40.png
JCB:
It could be, but I would propose that the nature of the TLM demands reverence while the nature of the NOM breeds laxity.
Click to expand...
I can not disagree with this strongly enough.

There is nothing wrong with the Mass. Just as there is nothing more sacred with the Trad Latin Mass.

They are both reverent and sacred when they are done correctly.
 
Deacon Ed:
Yes, we use a lot of incense in my parish. Here’s a picture of the iconostasis and the holy doors:
http://www.holycrossmelkite.org/images/Altchrch.jpg

If you want to see other pictures of my parish you can go to holycrossmelkite.org and follow the link to the pictorial.

Fr. Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Okay, as soon as I scrolled into this post, before I even read it, I started smelling incense, and I’m still smelling it as I type this. I am not kidding!

What’s up with that??? :eek:

DaveBj
 
Must have a touch and sniff feature built into the new Windows Security Pak 2 upload

That way if something “smells fishy” you don’t open it up
 
Deacon Ed:
Today when you attend a Latin Mass it is generally with a congregation that a) wants to be there and, b) actively prays the Mass. This was not the norm when the Tridentine Mass was normative. The same types of abuses exist today in the Mass of Paul VI simply because it is the norm. We also have to consider cultural changes which affect how we approach and celebrate the Mass.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
I agree. As I opined in one of my posts, I thought that those who take the trouble to find and attend a TLM have a more reverent attitude to begin with. I’m sure that if you took a group of TLM attendees to a NO Mass properly celebrated, they would display the same amount of reverence. On the other hand, if you took your typical lukewarm NO Mass attendees to a TLM, I seriously doubt their reverence would imrove.
 
Deacon Ed:
Today when you attend a Latin Mass it is generally with a congregation that a) wants to be there and, b) actively prays the Mass. This was not the norm when the Tridentine Mass was normative. The same types of abuses exist today in the Mass of Paul VI simply because it is the norm. We also have to consider cultural changes which affect how we approach and celebrate the Mass.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
I agree. As I opined in one of my posts, I thought that those who take the trouble to find and attend a TLM have a more reverent attitude to begin with. I’m sure that if you took a group of TLM attendees to a NO Mass properly celebrated, they would display the same amount of reverence. On the other hand, if you took your typical lukewarm NO Mass attendees to a TLM, I seriously doubt their reverence would improve.
 
Deacon Ed:
At the Council of Trent there was an overemphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass in response to the Protestant claim that it was not a scrifice at all.
Click to expand...
When the Church dogmatically resolves a problem in a Council, the Church is improved through the clarification.
Deacon Ed:
The same types of abuses exist today in the Mass of Paul VI simply because it is the norm.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the abuses are the same. The rite of mass of Paul VI eagerly lends itself to desacralization, and the attendant changes in the Church dovetail perfectly with that. It’s quite a different situation entirely.
 
I have literally been on both sides of the fence.

I was originally catechized by SSPX. Later on, I did some self-catechism via Lukefahr. At present, I’m taking one of Hahn’s online courses.

I’ve been educated in both TLM and in NOM.

I’m one of those people caught in-between. Most Novus Ordo people consider me too traditional, while most Traditionals consider me too Novus Ordo. I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place.

There are radicals in both TLM and NOM, and they distort thinks like this: The extreme TLM people are like the Pharisees. They are so focused on the rubrics and the liturgy that they’ve forgotten the basic teachings of Jesus Christ. The extreme NOM people are so Modern that they think it’s OK to be Catholic and pro-choice, and think it’s OK to come to Mass in shorts and a tank top.

There is one way the extremists are alike: Neither is in communion with Rome. SSPX, SSPV, the Sedevacantists, and the Kerry Katholics are in a state of excommunication, and they’ve done it to themselves.

I DO tend to lean towards traditionalism and orthodoxy, because of His Holiness Pope John Paul II. It angers me that many bishops of the American church are ignoring the Pope. For example, the Pope is not happy with lay people distributing Communion, and he’s not happy with Altar Girls. Despite this, I still see Altar girls and still see lay people distributing the Eucharist.

This is where I draw the line: I obey the Pope over my local bishop and over my local priest. If they say something contrary to the Pope, I don’t obey them. God bless The Pope.

Personally, I think we’re on the verge of a MAJOR schism, and I think this schism will happen within the next five years.

The only think that could stop it, in my opinion, is reunification with the Orthodox church. Their traditionalism and piety will literally fill the church with fresh air. Until then, the Kerry Katholics rule the roost.
 
40.png
csr:
When the Church dogmatically resolves a problem in a Council, the Church is improved through the clarification.
Click to expand...
In general, this is true. If there were any doubt about the sacrificial nature of the Mass the Council of Trent put that to rest. However, in the process of doing that the Council did what all Councils do – addressed a particular problem that was happening at that time and in a place where it affected the Church. Such teaching is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, complete. Thus, the teaching of the Mass as a “Paschal Banquet” was given short shrift at Trent (again, in part, because this was what the Protestants were emphasizing). Yet, the reality is that the Mass is both. We cannot ignore the one aspect simply because Trent emphasized the other.
I don’t think the abuses are the same. The rite of mass of Paul VI eagerly lends itself to desacralization, and the attendant changes in the Church dovetail perfectly with that. It’s quite a different situation entirely.
Click to expand...
Having grown up with the Tridentine Mass I can assure you that it was also desacralized, although in slightly different ways than that of the mass of Paul VI.

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
TheGrowingGrape:
I have literally been on both sides of the fence.

I was originally catechized by SSPX. Later on, I did some self-catechism via Lukefahr. At present, I’m taking one of Hahn’s online courses.

I’ve been educated in both TLM and in NOM.

I’m one of those people caught in-between. Most Novus Ordo people consider me too traditional, while most Traditionals consider me too Novus Ordo. I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place.

There are radicals in both TLM and NOM, and they distort thinks like this: The extreme TLM people are like the Pharisees. They are so focused on the rubrics and the liturgy that they’ve forgotten the basic teachings of Jesus Christ. The extreme NOM people are so Modern that they think it’s OK to be Catholic and pro-choice, and think it’s OK to come to Mass in shorts and a tank top.

There is one way the extremists are alike: Neither is in communion with Rome. SSPX, SSPV, the Sedevacantists, and the Kerry Katholics are in a state of excommunication, and they’ve done it to themselves.

I DO tend to lean towards traditionalism and orthodoxy, because of His Holiness Pope John Paul II. It angers me that many bishops of the American church are ignoring the Pope. For example, the Pope is not happy with lay people distributing Communion, and he’s not happy with Altar Girls. Despite this, I still see Altar girls and still see lay people distributing the Eucharist.

This is where I draw the line: I obey the Pope over my local bishop and over my local priest. If they say something contrary to the Pope, I don’t obey them. God bless The Pope.

Personally, I think we’re on the verge of a MAJOR schism, and I think this schism will happen within the next five years.

The only think that could stop it, in my opinion, is reunification with the Orthodox church. Their traditionalism and piety will literally fill the church with fresh air. Until then, the Kerry Katholics rule the roost.
Click to expand...
I agree! I’m sick of the disobedience. I’m sick of lay distributors. I’m sick of girly-altar boys. I’m sick of disdain for tradition and glorification of novelty and disobedience.
 
40.png
TheGrowingGrape:
For example, the Pope is not happy with lay people distributing Communion, and he’s not happy with Altar Girls. Despite this, I still see Altar girls and still see lay people distributing the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
What is you basis or documentation for believing this, especially in light of the fact it is permitted (RS)?
 
I was recently re-reading Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, by C.S. Lewis. While Lewis was Anglican, not Catholic, there is a passage in the book that relates well to this topic:
It looks as if they (Anglican clergymen) believed people can be lured to go to church by incessant brightenings, lightenings, lengthenings, abridgements, simplifications, and complications of the service. And it is probably true that a new, keen vicar will usually be able to form in his parish a minority who are in favor of his innovations. The majority, I believe, never are. Those who remain- many give up churchgoing altogether- merely endure.
Is this simply because the majority are hide-bound? I think not. They have a good reason for their conservatism. Novelty as such, can only have an entertainment value. And they don’t go to church to be entertained. They go to use the service, or, if you prefer, enact it. Every service is a structure of acts and words through which we receive a sacrament, or repent, or supplicate, or adore. And it enables us to do things best- if you like, it “works” best- when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it. As long as you notice, and have to count, the steps, you are not yet dancing but only learning to dance. A good shoe is a shoe you don’t notice. The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God.
But every novelty prevents this. it fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping. A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may try to exclude it, the question “What on earth is he up to now?” will intrude. It lays one devotion waste. There really is some excuse for the man who said, “I wish they’d remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep, not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.”
Thus my whole liturgiological position really boils down to an entreaty for permanence and uniformity. I can make do with almost any kind of service whatever, if only it will stay put. But if each form is snatched away just when I am beginning to feel at home in it, then I can never make any progress in the art of worship. You give me no chance to acquire the trained habit- ahbito dell’arte. … And any way, the Litugical Fidget is not a purely Anglican phenomenon; I have heard Roman Catholics complain of it too.
Click to expand...
Continued…
 
40.png
ByzCath:
The reason I asked this is I was wondering what functions a bi-ritual Byzantine deacon could do in the Latin Church.

As I am sure you are aware, a deacon in our tradition can not baptize nor preside at marriages. I was wondering if a bi-ritual Byzantine deacon would be able to do those in the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I just saw this question. The answer is, yes, a Byzantine deacon who holds bi-ritual faculties to serve the Latin Church could be given faculties to baptize (and to bless), neither of which a Byzantine deacon (or a Latin deacon serving in the Byzantines) can do.

Deacon Ed
 
Continued from previous post…

The boldface portion of the previous post was my emphasis- keep in mind this book was written in 1963, when Vatican II was just getting started and there was no such thing as the Novus Ordo.

He goes on to say something that is applicable to all dissenters, whether they be SSPXers, ultra liberal or anywhere in between:
The business of us laymen is simply to endure and make the best of it. Any tendency to a passionate preference for one kind of service must be regarded simply as a temptation. Partisan “churchmanships” are my bete noire. And if we avoid them may we not possibly perform a very useful function? The shepherds go off, “everyone to his own way,” and vanish over diverse points of the horizon. If the sheep huddle patiently together and go on bleating, might they finally recall the shepherds?
Click to expand...
This post was somewhat longer than I intended it, nut I felt it was pretty applicable to the situation the Catholic Church faces currently.
 
RNRobert, thanks for the quote from C.S. Lewis. It reminded me of a somewhat similar article John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote called, “Thoughts Respectfully Addressed to the Clergy On Alterations in the Liturgy.”

Although he wrote it as an Anglican minister before his conversion, much of what he says would have been wise words for the Commission on the Liturgy headed by Archbishop Bugninini in the 60’s.

Here is a favorite quote:

“How few would be pleased by any given alterations; and how many pained!”

Here is the link to the whole article (the site apparently has just about all of Newman’s works):

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/times/tract3.html

God bless.
 
Brennan:

Thanks for the Newman link. I see the site has his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which I’ve always wanted to read. When I have time, I’ll download the whole thing, I have an old (1960’s), somewhat falling apart copy of his Apologia pro Vita Sua that I bought in a Friends of the Library booksale some years ago.
 
Just a funny story from my son’s perspective:

He was only 3 yrs. old when we went to a NO Mass (it was about 40 minutes) . He was used to a Tridentine High Mass (over an hour). After the priest walked down the aisle and the recessional song was over, he kept looking around and had this confused look on his face. I asked him what was the matter and he said, “Is that it?”🙂

I just thought it was amusing.
 
I like both. I don’t believe one is better than the other in the eyes of God. I must say though, I enjoy going to the TLM more than the NO. I like tradition. I think the one advantage the TLM has over the NO, is that you can go anywhere in the world and follow the Mass if it is done in Latin. There is a language barrier when it is said in the vernacular. I also personally like the Altars better in the TLM Church. I am lucky that a local parish has the TLM. I try to go at least once a month.
 
The chruch I attend has a NOM, however the priest ( who I adore) is traditional and sometimes gives certian masses in Latin. We do however at times use alter girls, and that’s b/c of the lack of boys.
this is a little off the subject but…if every Catholic could listen to the CD “Mass Explained” by father Larry Richards, they would find so much more adoration for their faith.🙂
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
I am lucky that a local parish has the TLM. I try to go at least once a month.
Click to expand...
The nearest Latin Mass in my area is Jacksonville :(. I don’t like the idea of rolling out of bed at 5 AM to drive 1 1/2-2 hours in the dark to get to it. Still, one of these days I’ll probably break down and do it just for the experience…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top