TLM vs. Novus Ordo

[QUICUMQUE_VULT]

jbuck919:

I don’t know if the TLM would work very well in the vernacular. Latin seems to be its whole point. And people would quickly realize that “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven” has its warts and pimples too, chief among which is the insupportable Last Gospel. Even the 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia does not explain (at least according to my searching) what that is doing there.

I agree with those who have been maintaining that the NO depends too much on the personality of the celebrant and choices that should not be there in anything that properly calls itself a “ritual.” I cannot help the latter, but the former has a historic explanation in the US at least (I have not observed this problem in Germany where the priests go strictly by the book). It has to do with overreaction to freedom from constraint, especially by younger priests, in the time after Vatican II. I remember the young curate of my parish saying to us at CCD (with the implication that he did not like it) that priests at seminary were taught to say the Mass in exactly one way with no deviation, which he thought wrong. As soon as they were allowed to vary things, most young and many not so young US priests were quickly all over the place, to the point where this became the norm and a priest who merely did a Mass “straight” was looked upon as weird.

This open-ended informality was exacerbated by other infuriating customs such as announcing hymns. (“Now we will sing our offertory hymn on page 322, Holy, Holy, Holy.” This came also to be taken for granted when, in the traditional Mass, it was unheard of to interrupt the flow of worship this way. BTW, they also do not do that in Germany, where what is about to be sung is always posted.

Dear Brother jbuck919,
May I reccomend A book “The stripping of the Altars” by professor Eamon Duffy. I ordered my copy from Barnes and Nobles, it is also offered at Amazon. Professor Duffy caused quite A stir in the UK when His book was published. It turns A lot of assumptions about pre reformation Catholicism around. The Chapter on the Medieval Mass, is the most fascinating, It covers everything including the “Last Gospel” It was A way (and still is) of making A final act of faith in the Divinity of Christ.

I cannot recommend this book enough, the professors scholarship and research are impeccable. As you read his work you see that the current TLM is in fact much much older than Trent. Even the Sarum missal is very close to the roman rite.
God Bless

 

[jbuck919]

QUICUMQUE VULT:

Dear Brother jbuck919,
May I reccomend A book “The stripping of the Altars” by professor Eamon Duffy.

I’d like to read that. Thank you. Of course, an explanation of why something exists in an order of service does not make it sent from heaven. Anyone seen a unity candle ceremony at a nuptial Mass lately?

 

[palmas85]

Ham1:

I understand why some feel this way. But if what you say was truly the motivation behind the changes to the Mass, then that doesn’t speak very highly of the hundreds of very holy men who helped to develop and implement those changes. If that was really the motivation then I cannot see how men like Pope John Paull II and Pope Benedict XVI have not mandated sweeping changes that totally reconfigure the liturgy to eliminate this so-called ecumenical influence. Instead these men have reiterated over and over that the Mass should be said the right way, not that the Mass should be changed. If what you say is true, I just can’t understand why so many orthodox cardinals and Popes have supported the Mass.

Both John Paul II of blessed memory and Benedict XVI were staunch supporters of the reforms of Vatican II. And I actually agree there were many changes that needed to be made. But I still maintain ecumenism was and is still the driving force behind Vatican II as much as the reforms were… In numerous pronouncements both men constantly stated that re-unification of all Christians was of the utmost importance

And it is. But if you throw away a big part of what it means to be Catholic in order to achieve that goal what exactly have you accomplished? And more important than that, what are you left with?

As far as why orthodox bishops and clergy have supported it, the answer is simple. Obedience. The same reason I stuck with it. Obedience. You don’t have to agree with something or even like it in order to be obedient to it.

 

[pgoings]

I don’t know if the TLM would work very well in the vernacular. Latin seems to be its whole point. And people would quickly realize that “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven” has its warts and pimples too, chief among which is the insupportable Last Gospel.

Some Anglicans have used the TLM in the vernacular (or some form of it) since the late 1800’s, and have found it very workable. In my parish that’s exactly what is used, excepting only that the canon is frequently said aloud (which I dislike) and that Holy Communion is generally distributed under both species.

I’m not saying that it’s the answer to all of anyone’s liturgical problems, but it can work.

BTW, the reasons for the Last Gospel being added to the Mass are well-understood, even if you don’t agree with them. Personally I think that it’s a nice devotion.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

JKirkLVNV:

And THAT’S one thing that desperately wants tightening up…fewer options, fewer opportunities to “explore.” Every seminarian should be made to write, 20,000 times over the course of their schooling,“The Mass isn’t mine, I can’t stamp my ego on it.”

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

palmas85:

Both John Paul II of blessed memory and Benedict XVI were staunch supporters of the reforms of Vatican II. And I actually agree there were many changes that needed to be made. But I still maintain ecumenism was and is still the driving force behind Vatican II as much as the reforms were… In numerous pronouncements both men constantly stated that re-unification of all Christians was of the utmost importance

I think one of the biggest shames to come out of our liturgical upheaval is that many of us have our sets of reforms that we think were good ideas, but we’re now locked in a battle between two liturgies, neither of which is what was envisioned by Vatican II. I love the TLM and, were it available, I would probably attend it exclusively, but I also recognize that it was developing through the 20th century and could healthily continue to develop. The problem is, it’s now locked into its 1962 form, and its adherents (admittedly, probably myself included) are too shaken by the “results of change” to feel at all comfortable allowing the Pian missal to once again develop.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

pgoings:

excepting only that the canon is frequently said aloud (which I dislike) and that Holy Communion is generally distributed under both species.

.

This is what I don’t understand at all: why wouldn’t anyone want to hear the canon?

 

[goreyfan]

Because it’s so sacred and awesome that it’s unfitting that it should reach the ears of the profane.

 

[arieh0310]

JKirkLVNV:

This is what I don’t understand at all: why wouldn’t anyone want to hear the canon?

The Glory of the Silent Canon

The reason for the silence is, that at a very early stage in the Church’s liturgical awareness, it was realized that the miracles of grace which occur during the canon should not risk trivialization by being spoken out loud as if the sacred words which effected these miracles were simply in the normal run of ordinary speech. The mystery of the Real Presence, the miracle of transubstantiation, the subsequent pleading of the oblation, all this is the stuff of heaven, heaven come down to earth. Perhaps we would better say that in the canon, earth is raised to heaven. In the canon, the worshipping Church does not sink into silence. No, the truth is, that we rise into silence, a contemplative, anointed silence, over which the Holy Ghost is hovering, a timeless silence which breathes the life of heaven.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

goreyfan:

Because it’s so sacred and awesome that it’s unfitting that it should reach the ears of the profane.

Have you ever considered that God, in His infinite Perfection, needs absolutely nothing. He doesn’t need the Mass, WE need the Mass and so He instituted it for US, to confect the Sacrament of His Mercy and to propitiate His Justice for OUR sins. If it wasn’t for us, the Mass wouldn’t exist, because it wouldn’t be necessary. I think it’s terribly important (though not necessary, obviously) that we hear it, so the words can take root in us and bear fruit. I’ve found myself thinking on the very words of consecration (“This is My Body…This is My Blood”) during my work day, walking the halls, etc., and it brings me up short and makes me recall what was done for me on Calvary and what is presented again in the Holy Sacrifice. It makes me a better person, I think, to be able to hear it. This is one of the things that I’ve never been able to figure out or come to terms with, this and the custom of reading the scripture in Latin first, and then in the vernacular. Why read it to God at all? He WROTE it!!! Why read it in Latin? Does God only understand Latin? Was He not sure about what was being said until Saint Jerome gave us the Vulgate? I will be forever grateful to the Council and even to the “Spirit” of the council for the gift of the audible canon and for dropping, at the least, the readings in Latin.

And at the Mass, I would dispute that the faithful gathered together should be classified as profane, though I’m sure there are some that shouldn’t be taking communion.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Glory of the Silent Canon

Yes, I’ve read that homily. I disagree with the priest (and not just about the silent canon).

 

[jbuck919]

pgoings:

Some Anglicans have used the TLM in the vernacular (or some form of it) since the late 1800’s, and have found it very workable. In my parish that’s exactly what is used, excepting only that the canon is frequently said aloud (which I dislike) and that Holy Communion is generally distributed under both species.

I’m not saying that it’s the answer to all of anyone’s liturgical problems, but it can work.

BTW, the reasons for the Last Gospel being added to the Mass are well-understood, even if you don’t agree with them. Personally I think that it’s a nice devotion.

Well, I’ve seen Anglo-Catholic services in the US but never one that was a strict Latin Mass translation (not that I am doubting what you are saying). I’ve even been to one where after Mass (but not really after, if you know what I mean) the last thing that was done was a devotion to Mary. The problem is not the reason for doing something. I love the opening of the Gospel of John as much as anyone. The problem is tacking extra devotions onto Mass and having them become sentimentally inseparable from it. The Last Gospel is the grand-daddy of such instances. The post-Mass Leonine prayers could easily have drifted into the same category, and I would not be surprised if some of these independent chapels that have the TLM still use them even though their purpose was to pray out communism in Europe, a fact now accomplished.

 

[arieh0310]

JKirkLVNV:

Yes, I’ve read that homily. I disagree with the priest (and not just about the silent canon).

How about Psalm 46:10: Be still and know that I am God…

One of my gripes about the NO is the loss of sacred silence. You know you can be actively participating in silence, just as you can be totally spacing out while giving your vernacular responses.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

arieh0310:

How about Psalm 46:10: Be still and know that I am God…

One of my gripes about the NO is the loss of sacred silence. You know you can be actively participating in silence, just as you can be totally spacing out while giving your vernacular responses.

I totally agree with you regarding sacred silence. WE should keep our pies holes shut before Mass and our responses shouldn’t be shouted (or accompanied by up-lifted hands, gesturing toward the altar). There should also be spaces of silence, before the Gospel, after the homily, after the priest has seated himself after communion. I don’t see that as an argument for the silent canon, however, nor do I see Psalm 46:10 as much of a prop, either (there’s lots of passages, psalms, in fact, that urge us to shout with joy to the Lord. I’m not much of a shouter and I would hate to have scripture used to beat me over the head in an effort to MAKE me a shouter).

 

[arieh0310]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t see that as an argument for the silent canon, however, nor do I see Psalm 46:10 as much of a prop, either

I do think this Psalm 46:10 is a great prop. It’s like the Eucharist is crying out “be still and know that I am God”, come on I thought it was a great verse.

Anyway, there is more to communication that just words. I think the non-verbal communication of the silent canon is more powerful than the words spoken.

 

[arch_angelorum]

so is there any way to get the attention of Pope Benedict and tell him that many ppl think that the Tridentine VERNACULAR should be used? Perhaps he has not considered this as an option?

I know he has an email adress but seriously, I can’t imagine how many ppl email him and he probably doesn’t even read them- just some guys responding for him if you’re lucky to get a response.

I wonder what it would take to get the attention of the Vatican?

 

[cmt]

Interesting Article on Changes Here

Doesn’t it seem like alienated Catholics have more fun? The “traditionalists” who are sure that the past however many popes have derailed the Church get those wonderful liturgies with all that lace, Latin chant and incense. They also get the pleasure of moral and doctrinal superiority.

Those “progressives” that won’t be happy until the Church emulates all the ways and values of the dying world get to…well, they get to do all kinds of fun-looking things observant Catholics don’t. They also get the recognition of the New York Times and the Democratic National Convention, not to mention NARAL.

Honestly, though, it is not too late for any of us to join the alienated throngs. To help you in your efforts to be better than the Church, I offer Gotcher’s “Seven Easy Ways to Alienate Oneself from the Roman Catholic Church (especially for those who want to be more Catholic than the pope, but also for those who want the Church to become like the world).”™ These are not “steps,” but rather tactical components of an overall strategy. The more of these tactics that you follow and the deeper you enter into their spirit, the more likely you will be to accomplish your goal of alienating yourself from the Church of Christ.

1. Fixate upon and attach yourself to a secondary, non-essential aspect or expression of Church life (e.g. altar rails, voting for parish council members). Then have some legitimate authority in the Church change or remove said item. It is very helpful to interpret the change as a betrayal of The One True Faith. The more of these you can become attached to, the more likely you will be to be alienated at some point or another.
2. Identify a person of authority in the Church with God. Then make sure he does something stupid or sinful. It is very helpful if the stupidity or sinfulness involves you directly in some way, or makes the front page of the Boston Globe for several months.
3. On your own authority, elevate a widely held theological opinion on an open question to an infallible dogma of the Church. Then have the theological winds change. The more scorn you can get the proponents of the new view to heap upon your opinion and those who promoted it, the more deeply felt your alienation can become. It is also very helpful to get the Magisterium to favor the opposite opinion over yours.
4. Be so certain about the absolute truth of your opinion about a matter of prudential judgment that when the Church authorities express a different opinion, you can feel either betrayed and/or superior. When this happens, make as much hay out of the type of Church pronouncement in which Church leaders express their opinion and its relatively low level of authority. A thorough knowledge of the types of Church documents (which you conveniently “forgot” in the previous item) is very helpful.
5. Identify the thought of a certain cultural movement or political party with Revelation (e.g. The Democratic Party platform, the Republican Party platform). Demonize those who are members of an opposing movement or party. Then make sure that a lot of Catholics are members of that opposing movement or party. It is very helpful when the Church authority uses language that corresponds to some of the fundamental principles of the movement or party or condemns some fundamental principles of your own movement or party.
6. Gain all your knowledge of the Church and opinions about her doings from the secular press (e.g. New York Times, National Review).
7. The most effective technique is to reject a clear teaching of the Church (e.g. birth control, organized labor). One good strategy here is to believe and promote the idea that your ideas and the ideas of those of whom you approve are more “in line with the Gospel” than the Church’s position. Assure all hearers that the Church is going to catch up with you at some time. Then, make sure the Magisterium reasserts repeatedly and vigorously the teaching in question. Oh, and if an ecumenical council reiterates the teaching, make sure and emphasize that the council was “pastoral.”

I am not pretending that this list of strategies is comprehensive, but they are sufficient for beginners. More detailed and in-depth description of strategies for the advanced can be found in any good history of heresy in the Church, or in books like Ronald Knox’s magisterial Enthusiasm or G.K. Chesterton’s Heretics. Or just kick around the Internet for a while. You’ll be sure to find a site that specializes in the above strategies.

 

[oldfogey]

JKirkLVNV:

I actually see that as a compromise that might work, though it would set off howls on both the ultra-left and the ultra-right: Simply offer the TLM in the vernacular, word for word. I don’t care if they bring back the altar rails, I don’t care if the priest offeres the Mass ad orientum, I just want to be able to hear and understand the Mass (without following in a book, like there’s a script. I don’t use one for the Pauline Mass). I’d love to see that.

They actually did this for a couple years before 1969, and it worked well. It actually was what people thought the liturgical reform meant, and we thought further changes would be slight refinements. What we got instead was the Novus Ordo, a different thing entirely.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

arch_angelorum:

so is there any way to get the attention of Pope Benedict and tell him that many ppl think that the Tridentine VERNACULAR should be used? Perhaps he has not considered this as an option?

I know he has an email adress but seriously, I can’t imagine how many ppl email him and he probably doesn’t even read them- just some guys responding for him if you’re lucky to get a response.

I wonder what it would take to get the attention of the Vatican?

Please don’t get his attention on that one! I know there are folks who would favor a vernacular Tridentine Mass, but where would that leave little old me, who happens to be quite devoted to the TLM? Just as I love the rite, I think the use of Latin is quite valuable in it.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Regarding a silent vs. audible canon, I think I might slink over to the Eastern Christianity forum and ask about the canon in the other Catholic rites.