Traditional Latin Mass vs NO

[chuck001]

I just listened to Jimmy Akin discussing some problems with the traditionalists not accepting, or having a hard time with, the NO Mass.

I really admire Mr. Akin and enjoy listening to his conversations with people who have questions regarding the Catholic Faith. I will say, however, I can’t get on board with his opinion as to why there is so much conflict between the TLM and NO. I began attending NO right out of RCIA since the Church hosting my class offered NO Masses. I quickly began to lose interest and most importantly concentration, sadly, because I suppose I was searching for something more devout. The NO Mass, to me, runs very close to that of a Protestant service and it just wasn’t serious. I am not very cool with priests making jokes, mentioning sports games, etc., when it comes to the Mass. I attended a couple TLM’s and I am hooked. Not in the emotional or “it’s what I want” sense, but there is a deep spiritual longing that has enhanced my desire to go to confession and receive communion. I also came across some youtube vids from Renee Shumay and this one in particular has stuck with me to this day.

Thoughts?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

You should change your title. NO is offensive. It is the OF or Ordinary Form.

 

[Saxum]

You should change your title. NO is offensive. It is the OF or Ordinary Form.

No its not. Before the full reform of the liturgy, Rome referred to the changes as the Novus Ordo. It’s a historical term that is still acceptable to use.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Then type out Novus Ordo. Saying “NO” carries implications. If you need to abbreviate then it’s OF or Ordinary Form. The OP shows their obvious bias by typing out Traditional Latin Mass but leaving Novus Ordo as an abbreviation.

 

[Saxum]

Then type out Novus Ordo. Saying “NO” carries implications. If you need to abbreviate then it’s OF or Ordinary Form. The OP shows their obvious bias by typing out Traditional Latin Mass but leaving Novus Ordo as an abbreviation.

It’s a standard, recognised abbreviation. Nothing wrong with saying NO.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

You haven’t been around here long, then. NO is considered a derogatory abbreviation when used in a circumstance like above as it looks like the English word “no”

 

[Saxum]

My personal opinion is that the Traditional Latin Mass is the most beautiful thing this side of heaven. The Ordinary Form is a licit and valid liturgy but it lacks much of the symbolism, and doctrinal clarity of the Old Rite.

 

[Saxum]

You haven’t been around here long, then.

Actually, I’ve been here since 2008. I had to change my username.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I honestly prefer the novus ordo, there’s nothing wrong with traditional Latin Mass either, please let people have their preferences, and don’t complain about what they want to go to. And honestly I prefer Byzantine liturgy to traditional Latin Mass. The Church is diverse, as long as we stick to some sort of Norm, I don’t see what the problem is.

 

[Titivillus]

Rome referred to the changes as the Novus Ordo.

Really? I’m pretty sure Rome keeps calling things the Ordo Missae.

I mean: I know Pope Blessed Paul VI called it novus, when he promulgated it, but: I called my car “new” when I bought it seven years ago – Think I could sell it as “new” today?

 

[Saxum]

Really? I’m pretty sure Rome keeps calling things the Ordo Missae.

Novus Ordo Missae because each development was new at the time of promulgation.

 

[Titivillus]

Novus Ordo Missae because each development was new at the time of promulgation.

As was the Novus Traditional Latin Mass once upon a time… .

 

[Saxum]

As was the Novus Traditional Latin Mass once upon a time… .

I suggest you read the history before making inaccurate statements like this.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

You haven’t been around here long, then. NO is considered a derogatory abbreviation when used in a circumstance like above as it looks like the English word “no”

I strongly second this. In the “old” CAF, it wasn’t unusual to see posts referring not just to the “NO Mass,” but to “NO priests,” “NO sacraments,” and “NO parishes.” People might pretend that they were merely using an abbreviation, but in usages like that, it was clear that “NO” was more editorial opinion than abbreviation.

 

[Saxum]

I strongly second this. In the “old” CAF, it wasn’t unusual to see posts referring not just to the “NO Mass,” but to “NO priests,” “NO sacraments,” and “NO parishes.” People might pretend that they were merely using an abbreviation, but in usages like that, it was clear that “NO” was more editorial opinion than abbreviation.

This is the new CAF and we now have a more relaxed freer atmosphere.

 

[Titivillus]

I suggest you read the history before making inaccurate statements like this.

Thanks, I am pretty sure there was a first time a Traditional Latin Mass was celebrated. It would have been novus then, no?

Or are you going to tell me that if I read history I will discover that there was never a time when the Traditional Latin Mass was not celebrated? Go ahead watch me believe you.

 

[Saxum]

Thanks, I am pretty sure there was a first time a Traditional Latin Mass was celebrated. It would have been novus then, no?

I know I’m wasting my time trying to convince you because of what you’ve written in your second paragraph so I’ll provide evidence for the benefit of others:

When Pope St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Mass in 1570, he did so with the aim of restoring the liturgy. St. Pius V did not create a new liturgy. Here is what he wrote:

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.
Source: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm

The Extraordinary Form is Apostolic in origin and slowly developed over the course of centuries. This is why subsequent editions of the Traditional Latin Mass cannot be called new in the same sense that the Ordinary Form can be called new.

The Extraordinary Form was not created in the same way that the Ordinary Form was created. Benedict XVI called the Ordinary Form ‘a banal on the spot product.’ He did so because the Ordinary Form is the creation of a committee of so-called experts. The Pope Emeritus also lamented that the Ordinary Form ruptured the organic development of the Roman Rite.

The Extraordinary Form gradually and slowly developed in the devotion of centuries. It’s prayers and rubrics remained fairly static over time. No serious changes were ever made to it. Perhaps the most major change occurred when St. John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph to the Canon.

The Ordinary Form was a revolution in the Roman Rite. This is why it is appropriate to call it ‘new.’ In many ways, it bears little resemblance to the Ancient Roman Rite.

 

[edwest21]

Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

 

[Saxum]

This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

This is the most pertinent part of the quote you provided.

 

[runningdude]

You can have any opinion you want about how a particular church holds its services. To claim one form is inherently better than another will only create frustration and resentment. Find a service that brings yourself peace, and do not worry about how others worship.