"traditionalizing" the ordinary form

[georgewithfaith]

Kearney,

You write that it seems speculative to return to the “TLM.” I disagree with you on this point. A return to the TLM represents what I believe is truth within the Church. I don’t know if you have attended a TLM or are familiar with it. There is a level of reverence and holiness far above what the Novus Ordo offers.

You may have a point about suddenly implementing TLM and that it could cause adverse reactions in some of the faithful. Over time I think we will see more TLM and it will grow as the Mass of choice. On the other hand, back in 1969 Pope Paul VI did not seem to have a problem with changing the Mass and implementing the Novus Ordo for all while severely restricting the TLM. We probably differ on opinion I suspect but the Church has suffered the loss of faith since the Novus Ordo was implemented.

 

[CradleCath]

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. **

I don’t want to be rude, but I almost laughed when I read the beginning of your post. You seem to want the icing, but not the actual cupcake. Traditional Catholicism is not about music, artwork & statues…they are a beautitul PART of it, only when one realizes why they are there & what they are about.

What do you mean by the Dark Ages? Would that be during the time when nuns filled the school Convents & actually taught the faith? When you knew what God required in order for one to spend eternity with Him? Would that be the during the time period, pre-Vatican II, when priests would actually stand in the pulpit & say that missing Mass on Sunday, without a **very **good reason, was a mortal Sin?

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**

 

[CradleCath]

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?

I would say that if we wanted to go against Scripture, we would join the Orthodox Churces that allow birth control, & multiple marriages. However, having read the story of Onan & Christ’s words “What God hath joined together, let no man set assunder”. Personally, I’d rather follow Christ completely, if I’m going to follow Him.

 

[CradleCath]

Kearney,

You write that it seems speculative to return to the “TLM.” I disagree with you on this point. A return to the TLM represents what I believe is truth within the Church. I don’t know if you have attended a TLM or are familiar with it. There is a level of reverence and holiness far above what the Novus Ordo offers.

You may have a point about suddenly implementing TLM and that it could cause adverse reactions in some of the faithful. Over time I think we will see more TLM and it will grow as the Mass of choice. On the other hand, back in 1969 Pope Paul VI did not seem to have a problem with changing the Mass and implementing the Novus Ordo for all while severely restricting the TLM. We probably differ on opinion I suspect but the Church has suffered the loss of faith since the Novus Ordo was implemented.

You’re right that this happened to the Church in 1969, but I would NOT wish it on ANYONE**. I was there when the Mass of the Ages was actually forbidden & I would not want to do that to anyone.** I believe that, if our hierarchy will give us a chance…the two Masses can stand side-by-side for a while & one will simply fade away.

 

[Victorious]

I believe that, if our hierarchy will give us a chance…the two Masses can stand side-by-side for a while & one will simply fade away.

I could go for that. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.

My theory – and it’s only a theory – but my theory is that God allowed the TLM to be shelved in order to blow the lid off the modernist rot and maggots and corruption that lay beneath the surface in the Church. In 2001, Alice von Hildebrand said that for many years, Catholics had been losing their sense of the supernatural, and priests had been increasingly secularized, but this phenomenon had been masked by the beauty and sacredness of the Tridentine liturgy. Along came the Novus Ordo: there was the end of the mask.

And since the Tridentine liturgy was shelved – notice that nobody ever succeeded in legally abrogating it – it was kept out of the hands of the modernist tinkerers who have had a field day with the new rites. I guess in a way, you could say that the Novus Ordo is to the TLM what Sidney Carton was to Charles Darnay in A Tale of Two Cities.

 

[malphono]

The Eastern Catholics/Orthodox are traditional, but also hae married clergy (As well as monastics and celibate bishops).

Yes, that’s true. And so it was in the Latin Church until the discipline was changed.

They also tend to disdain the scholastic legalism that has entered the Roman rite since the Middle Ages

It’s not a matter of “disdain” but rather one of tradition in-and-of itself. Scholastic thought is alien to the East and Orient. It’s really nothing to do with the faith, nor even “legalism” as such: it’s strictly the thought pattern and mode of expression which differ.

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.

And what, pray tell, does that have to do with this thread? It might be better to leave that discussion for another thread in another forum.

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?

In the East and Orient, it is certainly not a matter of “change” but again, one of tradition. The discipline allowing the ordination of married men to the priesthood has remained in place. But, as I noted above, the discipline was changed in the West. Could it be reversed? Yes, absolutely. It’s merely a discipline. The question might better be: is it the panacea for the the current shortage of priests in the Latin Church that ? I doubt it.

 

[Victorious]

The Eastern Catholics/Orthodox are traditional, but also hae married clergy (As well as monastics and celibate bishops).

My understanding is that Eastern Rite Catholic clergy are celibate in the United States.

 

[malphono]

My understanding is that Eastern Rite Catholic clergy are celibate in the United States.

Not exactly. There was once such a restriction, but it had a “sunset clause” and was finally allowed to expire. Several ECCs have since either ordained married men to the priesthood, or have incardinated same who were ordained in the “old country.” OTOH, several other of the ECCs are still served solely by celibate clergy in the US and elsewhere in the diaspora. I could be wrong, but I believe the Syro-Malabar Church is the only one that has no tradition of married clergy, even in the “old country.”

 

[CradleCath]

I could go for that. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi

.

My theory – and it’s only a theory – but my theory is that God allowed the TLM to be shelved in order to blow the lid off the modernist rot and maggots and corruption that lay beneath the surface in the Church. In 2001, Alice von Hildebrand said that for many years, Catholics had been losing their sense of the supernatural, and priests had been increasingly secularized, but this phenomenon had been masked by the beauty and sacredness of the Tridentine liturgy. Along came the Novus Ordo: there was the end of the mask.

You may be right. I know that the Western European Theologians had been “chomping at the bit” for a while. But, here is the parsishes pre-Vatican II, the Church was thriving.

I also have a theory. Having been born & raised before Vatican II (I was 28 when the council ended), I think that I took the TLM. for granted. That’s probably why I expected the New Order of the Mass to be a great liturgy. After all, the Church had provided me with so much for the first 28 yrs. of my life, I just figured it would continue to do so.

Having endured the Novus Ordo Church for 40 years, I now appreciate what I had SO MUCH…the SACRIFICE of the Mass on Sunday…the Church filled to the point that one knew if one didn’t get there at least 20 minutes early…they’d be standing for the Mass. The devotions honoring the Blessed Mother, especially in the month of May & October, Benediction on Weds. night, The first Fridays & the Stations during Lent. We lost more than the Catholics of this younger generation will EVER know.

One good thing, I’ll never take the Traditional Latin Mass for granted again & I pray that my Grandchildren will have a chance to attend a Novena…to hear a Marian hymn at the beginning; to recite the rosary as a congregation; to hear the Loreto litany; to be ALLOWED a brief period of silent in preparation for Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament; to leave a packed Church on Weds. night & actually look forward to Sunday Mass.

This may sound like the musings of a nostalgic, old woman. It’s not. I can be nostalgic about candy that cost a penny, cokes in bottles & neighborhoods in which every home had a front porch. But, that isn’t what drives my need to WORSHIP God again. That’s too important.

BTW. I believe that the message from Alice Von Hilldebrand that you refer to was in her book "The Privilege of Being a Woman". It’s a great book.

 

[PJM]

=infanteedu;6953157]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.

***My dear friend in Christ;

The issue is NOT God understanding us…

OH NO!*

Mass is supposed to be about us KNOWING GOD:better and more intimately

However your views do reflect accurately the teaching effects of the Novus Ordo Mass. Like Protestant services that are I; Me; and we directed; the NO has reversed the focus of Mass to the detrement of Millions.

Love and prayers,**
Pat

 

[Victorious]

BTW. I believe that the message from Alice Von Hilldebrand that you refer to was in her book "The Privilege of Being a Woman

 

[OraLabora]

***My dear friend in Christ;

The issue is NOT God understanding us…

OH NO!***

Mass is supposed to be about us KNOWING GOD:better and more intimately

However your views do reflect accurately the teaching effects of the Novus Ordo Mass. Like Protestant services that are I; Me; and we directed; the NO has reversed the focus of Mass to the detrement of Millions.

Love and prayers,
Pat

I disagree. While I support the motu proprio on the EF, the abuse of the OF has reversed the focus of the Mass.

I weekly attend an OF Mass in a Benedictine abbey that is plenty reverent, is entirely in plainchant, and uses Gregorian chant in Latin for the propers and Kyriale. And always follows the rubrics to the letter (keeping in mind some allowed monastic variations such as concelebration, the Abbot using the episcopal blessing, etc). I defy anyone to attend that Mass and afterwards tell me with a straight face that it has “reversed the focus of the Mass”.

Too wide an interpretation of the rubrics does not mean that the Mass itself is invalid or the issue. Tightening up the rubrics and the discipline is all that is required, as well as willpower from the bishops to simply say “no” to insipid music that seems more geared towards providing royalties to lousy composers than providing a medium to carry the Word of God that transports one from the profane to the sacred world.

In the area I live, there is zero interest in a TLM simply because the abbey is 30 minutes away from a very sizable population catchment area, and it is a solemn, reverent Mass in Gregorian chant. There is a TLM if you want it but it is in a tiny schismatic chapel, and I for one am certainly not going to sacrifice orthodoxy on the altar of “tradition”; that would be a form of idolatry.

Similarly in Montreal, Masses in Gregorian chant are frequently available, as well as in sacred polyphony (e.g. Notre-Dame Basilica). In the Montreal suburbs is a Mass at a women’s Benedictine monastery in Gregorian chant that is also entirely in Latin 2x per week. Need I point out that it is also in the OF.

At least my limited and admittedly anecdotal experience suggests that if you give people reverent OF Masses that use true sacred music drawn from centuries-old traditions such as Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony, you pretty much kill the demand for a TLM.

Keep in mind as well that in my largely French area, there have not been the serious issues with defective translations from the Latin, at least not to the extent as those using the ICEL translations have had to endure. Yes, we have priests that abuse, that use “inclusive language” in French to the detriment of the official texts, etc etc. But see above: alternatives within the OF exist. People like myself, have voted with their feet (and gas budget) and go to a Mass that we know will be reverent, regardless of form. As it happens I can find that in the OF. If the EF was all that was available, I would definitely go to that instead, and probably would believe like most on this forum that the EF was the only answer. But, it isn’t.

 

[infanteedu]

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?

Thank God that I finally find someone who is not bashing me for my stance against the excessive importance to the Tridentine Mass. We must not lose track of the PASTORAL aspect of the Liturgy (If anyone doesn’t know the term, ask a priest, even though even he might not even care)
E.I.

 

[Victorious]

Too wide an interpretation of the rubrics does not mean that the Mass itself is invalid or the issue. Tightening up the rubrics and the discipline is all that is required, as well as willpower from the bishops to simply say “no” to insipid music that seems more geared towards providing royalties to lousy composers than providing a medium to carry the Word of God that transports one from the profane to the sacred world.

Call me crazy, but I think one of the ulterior motives behind the Novus Ordo was precisely to give free rein to experimentation. Did this experimentation not commence immediately the new rite was introduced? Why did the breathtaking abuses we see today not exist previously? When I hear lists of abuses in the preconciliar rite (rushing and slopping through the liturgy, mumbling the prayers, etc.) I hear things that are not good in themselves; but I don’t detect the presence of anything that remotely compares what has been done in the Novus Ordo.

My own view is that the usus antiquior is superior to the Novus Ordo on the merits, because even a reverently celebrated Novus Ordo Mass is still watered-down liturgy. (I very rarely get to attend a reverently-celebrated Novus Ordo: that is even harder to come by where I live than the TLM.)

 

[CradleCath]

***My dear friend in Christ;

The issue is NOT God understanding us…

OH NO!***

Mass is supposed to be about us KNOWING GOD:better and more intimately

However your views do reflect accurately the teaching effects of the Novus Ordo Mass. Like Protestant services that are I; Me; and we directed; the NO has reversed the focus of Mass to the detrement of Millions.

Love and prayers,
Pat

Do you think they’ll ever get it?

 

[CradleCath]

CradleCath;6961261:

Actually, it’s from an interview with Latin Mass Magazine

. Here’s a link.

I love Alice von Hildebrand. I could listen to her for hours. I haven’t yet read The Privilege of Being a Woman, but I would expect it to be a great book. I very much enjoyed The Soul of a Lion, about her husband (though I wish she’d carried the story all the way through to his death!).

Thank you so much, for finding the quote:

When passing through a door, my husband would always give precedence to those of his students who were priests. One day, one of his colleagues (a Catholic) expressed his astonishment and disapproval: “Why do you let your students step ahead of you?” “Because they are priests,” replied my husband. “But they do not have a Ph.D.” My husband was grieved. To value a Ph.D. is a natural response; to feel awe for the sublimity of the priesthood is a supernatural response. The professor’s attitude proved that his sense for the supernatural had been eroded. That was long before Vatican II. But until the Council, the beauty and the sacredness of the Tridentine liturgy masked this phenomenon"

.

And here’s another one that really struck my heart.

"With the loss of a sense of the supernatural, there is a loss of the sense of a need for sacrifice today. The closer one comes to God, the greater should be one’s sense of sinfulness. The further one gets from God, as today, the more we hear the philosophy of the new age: “I’m OK, You’re OK.” This loss of the inclination to sacrifice has led to the obscuring of the Church’s redemptive mission. Where the Cross is downplayed, our need for redemption is given hardly a thought

One can see how insightful this woman is. When Thomas Cranmer set about to write a new Mass for King Henry, he was quoted as saying:

"The Offering of Christ once made in that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Therefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

Of course, one will never see a crucifix in a Protestant Church…an actual depiction of Christ on the cross. Some believe that John Calvin was the originator of the “Once Saved, Always Saved” theory that completely corrupted the true teachings of Christ, but I’ve always wondered if that Cranmer’s notion that a Sacrificial Mass was a “Blasphemous & dangerous deceit” really started the thing. Well, we’ve certainly bowed to Cranmer (or Calvin) & turned the whole “ugly” notion of a Sacrificial Mass into a Last Supper type banquet of friends, called a Communal Meal…or…the Novus Ordo Mass. Both men would be overjoyed if they were still alive today.

Cranmer entitled his new “service”,

The “The Supper of the Lord and the Holy Communion commonly called the Mass”.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

Hopefully, some of you here, who think that the Novus Ordo Mass can be saved simply by using Gregorian Chant & Latin will read the message in the link above. The Chant & the Latin are to accompany & enhance the sense of SACRIFICE. They alone will not bring reverence to a “Communal Banquet”. Few Catholics today realize that the whole theology of the Mass was changed by Vatican II & when the Theology of the Mass changes, so does that of the Church.

 

[Kearney]

I don’t want to be rude, but I almost laughed when I read the beginning of your post. You seem to want the icing, but not the actual cupcake. Traditional Catholicism is not about music, artwork & statues…they are a beautitul PART of it, only when one realizes why they are there & what they are about.

 

[Victorious]

I think that Thomas Aquanis was wrong in his Summa about a lot of things and that the RCC was wrong to give him so much creedance over the long centuries.

Yep…I’ll trust a more or less anonymous forum poster with a Protestantized view of Catholicism and theology over the Angelic Doctor any day of the week.

By the way, it’s “Aquinas.”

 

[CradleCath]

CradleCath;6960879:
Kearney, When you reply within another’s quote lines…noone can reply to you. Therefore, I’ll just say that your large black font makes it appear as if you are hysterical.

I’m also going to ask were you part of the Church prior to Vatican II?

 

[PJM]

=CradleCath;6960879]

I don’t want to be rude, but I almost laughed when I read the beginning of your post. You seem to want the icing, but not the actual cupcake. Traditional Catholicism is not about music, artwork & statues…they are a beautitul PART of it, only when one realizes why they are there & what they are about.

What do you mean by the Dark Ages? Would that be during the time when nuns filled the school Convents & actually taught the faith? When you knew what God required in order for one to spend eternity with Him? Would that be the during the time period, pre-Vatican II, when priests would actually stand in the pulpit & say that missing Mass on Sunday, without a **very **

good reason, was a mortal Sin?

What do you consider “harsh legalism”. Would that be a priest, saying from the pulpit, that indulging in sex outside of marriage, using sexual intercourse for pleasure only…without the “threat” of having more children than WE want… be “harshly legalistic”?? Is that what you are speaking of as “harsh legalism”? What would you think of a priest that preached a sermon against homosexual acts? Would you consider him “unloving & uncharitable”? Even if he saves your soul from eternal damnation?

I’m not even going to TOUCH on what Christ expects of a Catholic Priest, the graces given to a priest when He vows celibacy for the Kingdom.
I will however, pass on the words of Christ from Matthew:

His disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, 8 **but only those to whom that is granted. 12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” **

I don’t think that a man who cannot accept celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is the right man for our PRIESTHOOD. It doesn’t mean that he’s wrong or “bad”, it simply means that God has not called him to the Catholic priesthood.

Instead, I’ll discuss the practical part of the matter. Are we Catholics in the pews ready & able to support a Priest & his wife, as professionals should be supported. We are speaking of a man with essentially 8 years of higher education, his wife &, perhaps 6 children. He & his family would deserve a home that is suitable for their size & their station in life. We would also need to provide him & his family with health insurance, **a car **(& probably a second car so that his wife can work when the collection plate doesn’t take care of their needs). The children of a Priest would need to, of course, attend Catholic Schools & most of us know that is quite an expense…nor should they be deprived of a college education because their Father is a Catholic Priest.

So, let’s say your parish has 2 priests. You will actually have to provide for 4 adults & approximately 12 children. Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is?

BTW. I have never known a Catholic man with a family who would even **dream **of taking on the responsibilities of a Catholic priest. These men CONFECT THE EUCHARIST, hear the Confessions, anoint the dying, Confirm our teenagers. To ask them to take on a family too, is asking a LOT.

***EXCELLENT RESPONCE! Thank you.

What is missing at the foundation of this persons positions is that God does’nt care about our personal wants, preferences, likes and dislikes in geguard HIS SACRED LITURGY.

---

John.3: 36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

Acts.5: 29 "But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men”.** 32 **“And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.”

The Fist Comandment tells us life is all about God and what GOD WANTS!

Love and prayers,
Pat