"traditionalizing" the ordinary form

[Victorious]

Had the Church kept the EF by now the churches probably would be empty. Besides there was the fear of going to hell for not attending Mass. About using the missal when attending the EF. But WHAT’s the purpose of it? The Word of God must be PROCLAIMED not read, people would have to buy a missal, be instructed on its use and remember to bring it to church…But what’s the point? Do we want to belong to an elite that can do these things? What about the millions and millions of Catholics who either can’t read or can’t be trained to use a missal…What about those people who live in missionary lands (now, practically all countries belong nin this category)…do the missionaries have to instruct them how to read the missal (and give them money to buy them). Isn’t it simple to follow the advice of Saint Paul who says that Faith comes from HEARING the message, not reading about. Doesn’t anyone knows that NOT EVEN THE MONKS (Trappists) in the US use Gregorian Chant and Latin?
I won’t revisit this topic any more. Jesus said “Go to all nations and TEACH…” I know that many will never change their way of thinking, but from the PASTORAL point of view I’m willing to cotinue with the OF even though I realize that there are MANY abuses which must be corrected.
Ed Infantge

Thank you for providing an undoubtedly satirical yet apt example of the liberal elitist’s low opinion of the hoi polloi who, in the elitist’s estimation, cannot be raised up above their present level of ignorance in order to be able to use a missal or understand a lick of Latin. Nor, says the liberal elitist, can the hoi polloi be trusted to be smart enough to buy a missal, remember to bring it to church, and then use it. The liberal elitist holds that the average Joe Pewsitter – especially if he is non-white, non-European Joe Pewsitter of the savage hinterlands in mission territory – is as dumb as a box of rocks, and therefore, since he hasn’t got brains enough to appreciate it, we have done him a great favor by depriving him of the liturgical heritage that is rightfully his. This, of course, really serves to expose the liberal elitist’s own lack of appreciation of the Catholic liturgical heritage, since, if he truly appreciated it himself, he would never think of taking it away from anyone. Yes, I am glad you have done us the service of exposing the outrageous ugliness of the liberal elitist point of view.

By the way, in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the epistle and Gospel are read in the vernacular, either in place of the Latin text or during the homily.

 

[Ockham]

we have done him a great favor by depriving him of the liturgical heritage that is rightfully his. This, of course, really serves to expose the liberal elitist’s own lack of appreciation of the Catholic liturgical heritage, since, if he truly appreciated it himself, he would never think of taking it away from anyone.

That sentiment is very present in my heart. After discovering the TLM and our traditional Church I felt robbed of my heritage and deprived of our identity. I can’t understand why any well meaning Catholic would have sought to destroy what Christ built. Without the Internet I’d still be on the path to Hell. As this is the Information Age my hope is many more Catholics find the truth and seek to rebuild the Church and their souls before it is too late.

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

First you would have to convince me that it is “proper” even when done by the book. It is a serious departure from authentic Catholic liturgy

Have you even stopped to consider what this “messing around” does to confuse and disrupt the prayer of those who don’t grasp what is going on with the rubricvs proper to the OF Mass they are attending. Self righteousness never trumps the proper way of doing things by the book.

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

I totally agree!!! On the basis of the richness of the liturgy alone…it is far much better…and far more Catholic

I don’t know, I actually like the liturgy of the EF better.

Compare:

With:

Or compare:

With:

(By the way those quotes are from the revised order of Mass

Also, even though the revised liturgy brings back “this pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the Chalice of everlasting salvation” - it is only in one of four Eucharistic prayers and since it is the longest one, how many priests do you think are going to choose it?

I don’t know, to me it’s not just incense and bells - although I like those - but I actually care about the prayers more.

 

[At_Trent]

On Sunday I served a Mass in honor of God the Father of all mankind. At the Mass I did traditional things which made the priest MC/concelebrant irritated.

For instance I rang the bell three times at the sanctus. After I did this the priest MC/concelebrant asked the altar girl to take the bell from me and ring it herself.

The next thing that upset him was that I took a paten and placed it under the chin or hands of each communicant. When he saw that I did this he asked me to go back to the sanctuary.

At another point in the Mass he asked an altar boy to distribute communion so that he could instruct the servers in the back.

During the period of silence the priest MC/concelebrant pulled me aside to explain my role during Benediction and then discussed with me that what I did with the bells and paten wasn’t wrong as he grew up with it but it was no longer the way to go. After that we went back to our seats.

The week before this Mass there was an octave of prayers and Masses which I also assisted. I did the traditional things (bells and paten) without objection from the visiting priests and even taught it to a local altar server.

So much for “traditionalizing” the ordinary form; Never give up!

You will be blessed for your efforts

 

[Emmit_Fitzhume]

Amen

I totally agree!!! On the basis of the richness of the liturgy alone…it is far much better…and far more Catholic

 

[plefe]

You will be blessed for your efforts

Keep working at it Brother. The little steps will take will bring glory and honor to Him. Amen.

 

[infanteedu]

That is conjecture and there is no evidence of that whatsoever. If any conclusion at all can be made, and it is doubtful that one can be, it shows the churches emptying after the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae. Is it because of the Missal or is it cultural? Good question.

That’s still a Church teaching, and one of the ten commandments. Missing Mass without a good reason is mortal sin and can incur damnation. Neither the NOM nor V2 changed that rule.

You don’t need a Missal to go to the TLM once you’re familiar with it, just like the OF or Byantine Rite. In fact, the need for a Missal is less at a TLM than at an OF because the participation of the laity is usually silent rather than responsorial. At the TLM one responds mostly interiorly while at the OF one responds mostly exteriorly.

Again, you don’t need the Missal. Do you think in the history of the TLM and all the precursor Masses with the same Canon everyone could read or carried around a Missal? Before the printing press, only the nobility and the clergy had books because of the expense, but everyone went to Mass. So, your argument doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

But you bring up a good point that I often make about either Sola or Prima Scriptura. Not reading the Bible doesn’t send one to hell or every illiterate person since Christ would be roasting there. But that’s a different topic.

Yes, and God also said keep holy the Sabbath but you seem to imply missing Mass isn’t a sin. Your argument about needing a Missal also falls short based on historical fact and in current practice.

I was NOT going to revisit this topic but since I don’t think I can make my thoughts clear let me add that in ALL the responses that I read NONE refers to the PASTORAL side of the Liturgy. I won’t add anything else. Jesus doesn’t need to be spoken in Latin to understand us. May God bless our Catholic Church and may Him send another JOHN XXIII to open wide the windows of the Church, as he said back in 1969.
E.I.

 

[Victorious]

I was NOT going to revisit this topic but since I don’t think I can make my thoughts clear let me add that in ALL the responses that I read NONE refers to the PASTORAL side of the Liturgy. I won’t add anything else. Jesus doesn’t need to be spoken in Latin to understand us. May God bless our Catholic Church and may Him send another JOHN XXIII to open wide the windows of the Church, as he said back in 1969.
E.I.

What is the “pastoral side of the liturgy”? The purpose of the liturgy is to give God the praise that is His due, to thank Him for His blessings, and to beg Him for the things we need.

And since you bring up John XXIII (who actually died in 1963), he did not usher in the Age of Aquarius in the Church, as liberal elitists like to claim. In 1962 he issued an apostolic constitution on the promotion of the study of Latin, in which he emphasized that Latin is the official language of the Church, that it must be upheld as such, that it must continue to be taught in seminaries, and that it must continue as the language of the liturgy. This constitution contains the following sentence:

In the exercise of their paternal care they [bishops and superiors-general of religious orders] shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

 

[Ockham]

I was NOT going to revisit this topic but since I don’t think I can make my thoughts clear let me add that in ALL the responses that I read NONE refers to the PASTORAL side of the Liturgy. I won’t add anything else. Jesus doesn’t need to be spoken in Latin to understand us. May God bless our Catholic Church and may Him send another JOHN XXIII to open wide the windows of the Church, as he said back in 1969.
E.I.

This is the dying moans of the ‘spirit of V2’ litugical liberal hippies. The gates of hell will never prevail against us so we will rebuild from the destruction of the past forty years.

 

[infanteedu]

What is the “pastoral side of the liturgy”? The purpose of the liturgy is to give God the praise that is His due, to thank Him for His blessings, and to beg Him for the things we need.

And since you bring up John XXIII (who actually died in 1963), he did not usher in the Age of Aquarius in the Church, as liberal elitists like to claim. In 1962 he issued an apostolic constitution on the promotion of the study of Latin, in which he emphasized that Latin is the official language of the Church, that it must be upheld as such, that it must continue to be taught in seminaries, and that it must continue as the language of the liturgy. This constitution contains the following sentence:

In the exercise of their paternal care they [bishops and superiors-general of religious orders] shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

 

[infanteedu]

infanteedu:
I meant 1959. This was an error, but the rest was not.
E.I.

 

[Kearney]

I like traditional things in Church too, but not to the point of going back to the Dark Ages. I’m all for more traditional music, artwork, statues (My parish has lots of them) and so on. However I also don’t want to do away with a mass that is said in the vernacular and facing the people. I don’t want harsh legalism and witch hunting to replace love and charity in the priest sermons. I want to be traditionally minded, but with the Church as it exist today with all the wonderful reforms which have come about through the working of the Holy Spirit for our good benefits.

Tradition is nice, but lets keep it in balance with much needed reforms (Like allowing married men to become priest).

 

[Victorious]

I like traditional things in Church too, but not to the point of going back to the Dark Ages. I’m all for more traditional music, artwork, statues (My parish has lots of them) and so on. However I also don’t want to do away with a mass that is said in the vernacular and facing the people. I don’t want harsh legalism and witch hunting to replace love and charity in the priest sermons. I want to be traditionally minded, but with the Church as it exist today with all the wonderful reforms which have come about through the working of the Holy Spirit for our good benefits.

Tradition is nice, but lets keep it in balance with much needed reforms (Like allowing married men to become priest).

What was dark about the “Dark Ages”? What is so wonderful about the “reforms”?

 

[onmyknees]

I like traditional things in Church too, but not to the point of going back to the Dark Ages. I’m all for more traditional music, artwork, statues (My parish has lots of them) and so on. However I also don’t want to do away with a mass that is said in the vernacular and facing the people. I don’t want harsh legalism and witch hunting to replace love and charity in the priest sermons. I want to be traditionally minded, but with the Church as it exist today with all the wonderful reforms which have come about through the working of the Holy Spirit for our good benefits.

Tradition is nice, but lets keep it in balance with much needed reforms (Like allowing married men to become priest).

I also love the traditional music (latin chanting, the Kyrie, Agnus Dei,). Having latin even if in only a few parts of the mass, it is what V11 called for, to keep the beauty of the latin in the mass.
I do not want married priests. Priests are representing Jesus. They are the bridegroom to the Church. The Church is the bride of Christ. Also priests today have so much on their plates. How can they have time for a wife and children too.

Many married protestant ministers end up divorced because their wives don’t get enough of their attention. Can you imagine having a priest that has to get divorced? Yikes! Also the percentage of protestant ministers who have been caught in sexual scandal is the same as Catholic priests so celebacy has nothing to do with it. I really love that priests give themselves totally to God and His Church. They are called to be an example of holiness to all of us.

 

[Layman]

I like traditional things in Church too, but not to the point of going back to the Dark Ages. I’m all for more traditional music, artwork, statues (My parish has lots of them) and so on. However I also don’t want to do away with a mass that is said in the vernacular and facing the people. I don’t want harsh legalism and witch hunting to replace love and charity in the priest sermons. I want to be traditionally minded, but with the Church as it exist today with all the wonderful reforms which have come about through the working of the Holy Spirit for our good benefits.

Tradition is nice, but lets keep it in balance with much needed reforms (Like allowing married men to become priest).

So, the status quo, but with married priests? It’s not really working, if mass attendance and vocations are anything to go by. With married priests and the N.O. plus the Catholicism Lite that is now the de-facto norm, we’re not too far from being Anglicans.

Just a few more reforms.

 

[georgewithfaith]

The Traditional Latin Mass developed organically for something like 1,500 years or so. The great saints of the Church prayed the TLM. Pope Benedict sees the decline in reverence for the liturgy, the loss of faith, the lack of faith in the real presence. That is why he allowed more widespread use of the TLM. We can try to make changes to the Novus Ordo but we will never achieve the beauty and perfection of the TLM. How can we compete with years and years of organic growth of the TLM?

If we went back to the TLM as the only form of Mass we would see a return and resurgence of the Faith. In the end Jesus and the Church prevail. In the end the TLM will return.

I am not understanding what the original poster means in writing that TLM advocates are ghetto?

 

[Victorious]

If we went back to the TLM as the only form of Mass we would see a return and resurgence of the Faith. In the end Jesus and the Church prevail. In the end the TLM will return.

I could go for that.

I am not understanding what the original poster means in writing that TLM advocates are ghetto?

Was it meant as an insult? If so: ouch.

 

[Kearney]

The Eastern Catholics/Orthodox are traditional, but also hae married clergy (As well as monastics and celibate bishops). They also tend to disdain the scholastic legalism that has entered the Roman rite since the Middle Ages and prefer a less definied stance on issues such as birth control, and divorce then do their Roman brothers. Tradition seems not to be affected much by these Eastern practices.

We have a very big problem with the shortage of priest in the Latin Church. Relaxing a discipline (Even if onyl temporary) will increase the needed number of clergy that are necessary for us to make a thriving Church. If the EC/EO’s who can certainly not be called “lite” in their attitude towards faith can have these changes, then why can’t we in the Roman rite as well?

 

[Kearney]

The Traditional Latin Mass developed organically for something like 1,500 years or so. The great saints of the Church prayed the TLM. Pope Benedict sees the decline in reverence for the liturgy, the loss of faith, the lack of faith in the real presence. That is why he allowed more widespread use of the TLM. We can try to make changes to the Novus Ordo but we will never achieve the beauty and perfection of the TLM. How can we compete with years and years of organic growth of the TLM?

If we went back to the TLM as the only form of Mass we would see a return and resurgence of the Faith. In the end Jesus and the Church prevail. In the end the TLM will return.

I am not understanding what the original poster means in writing that TLM advocates are ghetto?

That seems to be rather speculative on your part. Should the Church risk changing the mass again and adopting these antiquarian practices on the presumption that they will attract a good number of young people back to the fold (As opposed to the present small minority of youth who are currently involved with the Tridentine rite). What if the Church did make these changes and it just ended up alienating even more people, including youth from religious worship? Dare such a risk be took based on the supposed assumptions of Tridentine apologist?