TLM vs. Novus Ordo

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

But do you genuinely think that the Holy Father is going to end the use of the vernacular in the Mass NOW (regardless of what the “reformers” imagined)? What part will be in Latin and what part will be in the vernacular? Will we start the Latin with the Sursum Corda? Will it be Latin up until after the Consecration of the Most Sacred Body and in the vernacular from the Consecration of the Most Precious Blood? I doubt it and I think you do, too! That would be REALLY awkward! Do you think that the majority of people who prefer the vernacular Mass will be content to have ONLY the readings in the venacular and the rest in Latin (perhaps that’s what the "reformers intended)? I really kind of doubt that. Again, I think we may see the “sung” parts in Latin, maybe the Our Father (Pater Noster). Why? Because I think the vast and silent majority, those sometimes derisively refered to as “potatoes,” will not be pleased and will make it known AND I doubt the Holy Father will want that kind of upheaval in the Church again. That’s why I said that he wouldn’t heal one schism by initiating another. I also don’t think the bishops want that.

So what you are saying esentially is that what matters is what the congregation wants and is comfortable with right?

Unfortunately that is not how the Pauline Rite was introduced. We wern’t given options and weren’t asked our feelings on it. No opinion polls were taken and public acceptance gauged. We were told this is it. Take it or leave it. This is the new church and the new way.

It seems strange that you advocate for yourself and other supporters of the Pauline Rite and vernacular usage exactly what we were denied forty years ago when the breath of spring blew through the church

I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen if wholescale changes were made at this point. Very interesting indeed.Since apparently what is most important is what the congregation wants and is comfortable with, would most stay with the church through obedience as most of us did, or would they schism off as some did in the 70’s?. Interesting angle to think about… .

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

So what you are saying esentially is that what matters is what the congregation wants and is comfortable with right?

Unfortunately that is not how the Pauline Rite was introduced. We wern’t given options and weren’t asked our feelings on it. No opinion polls were taken and public acceptance gauged. We were told this is it. Take it or leave it. This is the new church and the new way.

It seems strange that you advocate for yourself and other supporters of the Pauline Rite and vernacular usage exactly what we were denied forty years ago when the breath of spring blew through the church

I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen if wholescale changes were made at this point. Very interesting indeed.Since apparently what is most important is what the congregation wants and is comfortable with, would most stay with the church through obedience as most of us did, or would they schism off as some did in the 70’s?. Interesting angle to think about… .

Please don’t read into what I’ve written other than what I’ve written. I’m not saying that we’re a congregational church, where the people get to vote, certainly. What I am saying is that I’m fairly certain that the Church, in particular Pope Benedict, who was at the Council and saw all the upheaval, has learned a lesson from the past 40 years and will not attempt to do with the Pauline Rite as was done with the Pian one. I think the “sesum fidei” (hey, that’s Latin, ain’t it?) would be against it. The very thing you speak of, the upheaval and chaos, will be something they wish to avoid THIS TIME. I wasn’t a Catholic then (I was born in 62, converted in 88), but THAT’S why I’ve always had empathy for the TLM devotees: I wouldn’t want anyone messing with the Mass I love, so I figure they should get the Mass THEY love.

 

[mrdrifter]

“Promote union (SC)” is decidedly different from “appease Protestants (Anna Elizabeth)” We didn’t sacrifice anything that is essesntially Catholic in the reform of the liturgy in order to appease Protestants. People who believe so have confused “tradition” with “Tradition.”

The main point is that Sacrosanctum Concilium did indeed call for the liturgy to be changed in a way that would promote union with Protestants. Whether these changes were intended to appease, molify, attract, intrigue, or titillate I don’t know. But it seems likely that the reformers, in responding to this concern, were trying to make the liturgy appear less rather than more distinctively Roman Catholic.

Anyway, it strikes me that they failed utterly to promote ecumenical union. Instead they managed to increase disunity within the Latin rite.

 

[Trident59]

I’ve been told by the more radical elements of TLM supporters that combining latin and chant with the N.O. is like putting lipstick on a pig.

I, personally, don’t hold to that line of thought. I feel that the N.O. is a valid Mass. However, having said that, if I have a choice of plain “vanilla” (N.O.) or chocalate swirl(TLM) I’ll take the latter. In other words why should I not attend Mass where I feel that I can worship “Most Reverently”.

Some elements of the church seem to resent the fact that there is a growing segment of the church that do not want to participate in irreverent worship.

Enough said.

 

[johnnykins]

Trident59:

I’ve been told by the more radical elements of TLM supporters that combining latin and chant with the N.O. is like putting lipstick on a pig.

I, personally, don’t hold to that line of thought. I feel that the N.O. is a valid Mass. However, having said that, if I have a choice of plain “vanilla” (N.O.) or chocalate swirl(TLM) I’ll take the latter. In other words why should I not attend Mass where I feel that I can worship “Most Reverently”.

Some elements of the church seem to resent the fact that there is a growing segment of the church that do not want to participate in irreverent worship.

Enough said.

Oddly the NO mass I usually go to has both Latin and chant. Pretty pig to me

 

[AJV]

johnnykins:

Oddly the NO mass I usually go to has both Latin and chant. Pretty pig to me

But a pig none the less

 

[JW10631]

ByzCath:

This is just nonsense.

The Mass was not changed to “appease Protestants”. You have been spending too much time with those conspiracy theorists out there. Protestants had nothing to do with the current Mass other than modifying their “rites” to look more like it.

Byzcath, I respect your opinion. You are one of the most reasoned people here.

However, I must disagree. On one of Fr. Groeschel’s recent TV programs, he interviewed the editor of *Inside the Vatican *magazine, who made exactly the same claims that Anna Elizabeth made, if in a slightly different manner.

The Novus Ordo in the English speaking world has been badly translated, and in far too many places, is not celebrated with the proper reverance. We have had bad music, every Tom, Dick and Harriet handing out Communion, in one church you are told to hold hands during the Our Father, in another you are told to stand throughout Communion.

The sacredness of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the traditions and laws of the Eastern Church do not permit “modern” hymns, a flock of eucharistic ministers, guitars, altar girls, etc. I thank God for that.

“Ecumenism” should have always been aimed at reconciliation with Eastern Orthodoxy, not Protestantism. Mainline Protestanism is dying and any attempt to reconcile with churhces that cannot agree on what they believe except that they don’t like the Catholic Church is doomed to failure.

 

[PepeRoni]

JW10631:

The sacredness of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the traditions and laws of the Eastern Church do not permit “modern” hymns, a flock of eucharistic ministers, guitars, altar girls, etc. I thank God for that.

“Ecumenism” should have always been aimed at reconciliation with Eastern Orthodoxy, not Protestantism. Mainline Protestantism is dying and any attempt to reconcile with churches that cannot agree on what they believe except that they don’t like the Catholic Church is doomed to failure.

Definitely agree with him there. Protestantism will always exist, because we have no foundation to build on. They are defined by what makes them NOT Catholic. I’ve attended the traditional Mass in a non-SSPX chapel and you can tell there’s a huge difference in reverence for the Mass, people are better dressed and arrive on time (and don’t leave early), and actually know a thing or two about the faith. I don’t know personally if that is enough to warrant a split with Rome. But at the same time they has an important purpose of carrying on and preserving the faith in its most literal (and non watered-down version of modern times) form. I hope there was a great reason for all of this.

(not a big fan however of accusations of the Pope not being a validly ordained bishop, Transubstantiation not occurring because of invalid consecration at Mass etc)