What attracts youths to the Tridentine?

[otjm]

What is it though that attracts some of these younger college kids to this form of the Mass? I’m glad they are attracted to it, but just a bit surprised.

I think that ncjohn hit on a number of things; I would add my own $.02 worth.

All pendulums swing back and forth, and all ages have their fashion and their attitudes. 15 years ago I predicted that concservative Catholics would be coming to the forefront (for which I was called an arch-conservative).

Why would some of the younger (I’ll cut it at under 35) go? Some, like those who seek out classical music, prefer something more structered and complex; and the EF is both.

Many are seeking a reverence they do not perceive in the OF, and if this is an issue, it becomes more so as it is talked up. I have been around long enough to know that there have been less than revereant Masses in the OF; I have also been around long enough to know that there have been Masses that were less than reverant in the EF. But a constant repeating of an idea - “The EF is more reverant than the OF” becomes a reality to those who hear it often enough, even if it is not factual.

Many are drawn to the peripherals; specifically, the more complex rubrics. When I listen closely, they talk about things such as Communion on the tongue as opposed to the hand, how the priest holds the Host (and related rubrics regarding his fingers), the use of Latin, polyphonic music such as Palistrina, bells… the list goes on.

Part of it is the natural setting off of one generation from another; it is ony surprising that it took so long.

Part of it is that some people are drawn to tightly written rules, and are more caught up in the rule being followed than they are in the why we have that rule to begin with - form over substance. They perceive the OF to be to flexible, complain about optional prayers, and seem to feel tha there is something - I don’t know what, but it strikes me as if they were looking for magic - in an exactly follwed rubrical pattern. I say that not to be offensive, but I can’t find other words to explain the level of facination and angst blended together that I find in a few.

As a note, I would point out that some recent statistics show that the lowest attendance group is those in their 20’s, and so out of those in their 20’s who attend Mass on a regular basis, it would not be the least bit surprising to me to see a proportionally larger number attending the EF if it is available. But to presume that the large dropout form the 20’s group is due to the OF is not, I would submit, demonstrated.

 

[otjm]

I would like to know where all of these “charismatic” young priests are that really believe that Vatican II (itself, and not the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ nonsense) is the root of all modern evil and want to go back to the 1950’s. This is hogwash-any traditionalists worth their salt know very well that the Council itself is not the real problem and we also know very well that the 1950’s were not a “golden age” that we want to go back to. Do you think this junk just appeared out of no where circa 1965? The 1950’s, as one of the FSSP priests I know said, were a very liturgically decadent time in the Church’s history. Hardly a time to want to emulate.

Not having the discussion with the priest, I do not know what he means by “decadant” in the 50’s , but I would certainly like to hear. As to where those priests are, You might look into the most conservative seminaries. Keep in mind that a seminary can be true to the Magisterium and not be exceedingly conservative. Read Goodby, Good Men; some of the people in there weren’t able to separate out wheat from chaff either.

Look to what then Cardinal Ratzinger said - we could do with a smaller more focused Church. The idea of a “remnant” may not be quite the right term to use, but honest change and appropriate reform comes from the focused, zealous, orthodox “minorities” within a decadent and bloated visible “People of God”. The wheat and cockle grows together.

I suspect, since Cardinal Ratzinger was a professor in Europe, and has spent almost his entire life in Europe, that when he looked at the Church and what was left of it in Europe, that was what he was speaking of - country after country where only 5 to 10% of the Catholics were attending Mass on a regular basis. Couple this with the massive loss of priests and religious throughout there, and there was only a remnant. Secularism is far more advanced there than here.

Furthermore, we’ve been dealing with a vast “schism” of sorts for the past 40 yrs-except that the people who’ve rebelled against Holy Mother Church stubbornly refuse to read the writing on the wall that one cannot deny tenets of the Catholic Faith and remain in the Church. So, how is being part of the “remnant” that has seen past the apathy and the heterodoxy a bad thing?

There has been apathy (but guess what - it wasn’t invented with Vatican 2) and there has been dissent. However, not all of the dissent has been from the left; it is just that the dissent from the left has been the most widespread. Those dissenting on the right have been largely marginalized. And Rome has repeatedly recognized the Church in the US as being a bright spot in the world of Catholicism, and a vibrant part of the Church, in spite of its problems. The difficulties elsewhwere, most particularly Europe, are far greater than you seem to realize.

What I have seen is a general and gradual move to a more conservative position in the Church in the US. But I have also seen the anger, and outright visciousness to Vatican 2 by some of those styling themsleves as traditionalists. Maybe you are simply unaware of them; but they are certainly feeling their wheaties recently. There have been comments in these threads that have been truly amazing; triumphalism is not dead by any means.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

As celebrated by orthodox priests, it’s the most beautiful thing this side of heaven! You can also trust that you will see and hear orthodox Catholicism with absolutely no nonsense of the abusive or allowed kind. No fuzzy homilies, no gladhanding entertainer priests, modest dress, holy silence, good music, beautiful vestments/vessels/architecture, orthodoxy, no flocks of EMHC, no altar girls, etc. The big thing is the orthodoxy and unabashed Catholic outlook. The traditionalist priests I know don’t pull punches in their teaching and the people all act like Catholics.

Basically, an unadulterated dose of Catholicism. Sure, there are some areas that have well celebrated NOs here and there but you can pretty much bet that if its a TLM celebrated these days, its going to be good. When I was getting serious about the Faith, the biggest shot in the arm was finding the traditional Mass.

“here and there?” I have yet to encounter a “bad” Novus Ordo in my Archdiocese. But then again we do have Chaput as our leader and he doesn’t pull any punches either. Maybe ya’ll should move up to these them dar hills.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Compare:

http://www.stmup.org/images/altsplash.jpg

to:

http://www.stalphonsusbalt.org/altarStA1-2.jpg

I think they both look beautiful. What’s wrong with the first one? Jesus Christ is Present on both altars so absolutely nothing.

 

[ravenonthecross]

I think they both look beautiful. What’s wrong with the first one? Jesus Christ is Present on both altars so absolutely nothing.

the first one, looks like a auditorium in an art school, a far cry from what a Church that offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should look like! And besides, most Catholic churches ought to look like the second picture. Vatican II, never called for the destruction of the High Altars!

 

[holy_roamer]

The young people would be more attracted to a chapel like this if there were softball games during the evenings.

http://shutter07.pictures.aol.com/d...9/42/jnNzRYgXtzC+2NdzDR6yzKvrW6F5uhul0280.jpg

.

 

[Ad_Deum]

I love the whole aspects of the Traditional Latin Mass from incense to the chants… Everytime I attend the liturgy I feel the reverence and presence of God which I did not honestly experienced in the Novus Ordo Mass. In addition, the Traditional Latin Mass was celebrated and prayed by many saints, and many people were also martyred defending the Catholic faith and this liturgy from the Reformation movements. In the Traditional Latin Mass there is order and discipline, and it follows one rubric. The main focus of the TLM is the Most Holy Trinity, and the Holy Eucharist is only blessed and given by the ordained ministers.
I can’t think of any more rite venerable as the Traditional Latin Mass, the most beautiful and worthy rite of the Catholic Church.

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christus
Instaurare omnia in Christo

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Here is a comment (which has been abbreviated a bit by me) from another blog which applies here as this is someone who has worked with youth:

"I normally attend the NO in Latin. However I have taught run-of-the-mill Catholic undergraduates, in a basic course on Catholicism for five years now. I require them to attend a Latin Mass, either NO or Tridentine and report on it. So I have a database of between 150 and 200 student reactions. Most of them had no idea what a Latin Mass was like. Most of them attended at St. John Cantius but a few attended in other parishes around Chicago. 95 % of them went into the assignment either indifferent or vaguely hostile, expecting to be bored or feeling lost.

Well over 95 % report that they had never experienced the Mass as an act of worship to the degree that they did in attending a Latin Mass. What they comment on most often is that people were paying attention (in their own vernacular parishes they themselves notice that a lot of people talk and basically behave casually), people were there to worship. They thereby are saying that they do not perceive people at their regular parishes to be there primarily to engage in heavy lifting worship. And they like what they see at the Latin Mass. Without any prompting from me, say that, well, worship ought to be different, lofty, exalted, not casual and everyday. They do not find that in their run-of-the-mill parishes.

The upshot of my students’ papers says to me that with vernacularization and the lack of respect for the rubrics, the improvisation by priests and all the other abuses has come an atittude that even 18-year-old relatively nominal Catholics recognize as saying, “this stuff is a bunch of hooey and I don’t see why I should go to Mass when I could be doing so many other things.” They see the hieratic Latin Mass and they are with very, very few exceptions drawn ineluctably to it, even those who came at it with hostility.

Many of them comment that their first sight of the interior of the building began the process of attracting them. Again, 90 % of them perceive the interior of SJC as lofty, hieratic, the sort of thing a church ought to be and they openly say that they perceive their own parishes, in most cases (not all, because there’s more variety in the architecture and furnishings of their parishes than in the liturgy of their vernacular parishes–it seems to be more routinely desultory) as not particularly worshipfully attractive.

The greatest resistance to the Latin Mass has come from the occasional student already active in his parish and often also active in Jesuit campus ministry events who has heard many times about those reactionary, nostalgic TLM folks who prefer Mass in a dead language. Even they, in most cases, freely admit that they were surprised how much they were drawn to and drawn into the Latin Mass. But in these few cases they simply cannot yet admit that the intellectual animosity instilled in them (different from the garden variety mistrust and doubt in the nominal Catholics who approach the assignment mostly with a standard, why should I have to bother with this?) was wrong–they just can’t quite let go of it so they move the goalposts and invent reasons why, even though they were moved by their experience, it’s still not best for the church–a church of which they consider themselves active ministers.

All of the above says to me that objectively speaking–not merely on the level of tastes in art or feelings–these students perceive a real difference between what they have grown up within their vernacular parishes and what they see at SJC.

It is not the Latin Mass itself that captivates them. If they were to visit a High Anglo Catholic Rite I Episcopalian Solemn Mass, with Cranmerian hieratic English, incense (oh, all of them always comment on the use of incense), the best of the English choral tradition, etc., I expect their comments would be overwhelmingly positive. The point is that they do objectively perceive a difference in degree of loftiness, sacrality, hieraticness and they, with very few exceptions assume that worship of God ought to be hieratic and lofty, even though they have been taught their entire lives that God doesn’t need to be worshiped with special art and music and incense, that it’s a matter of indifference because after all, it’s a real (valid) Mass regardless of the kind of music or decorations…

They intuitively reject that at a rate of about 9 to 1. Go figure!"

Comment by Dennis Martin (hope he doesn’t mind me reposting) from:

When I went to a Tridentine Rite Mass last summer…
[hive.htmlhttp://markshea.blogspot.com/ 200...01_arc](http://markshea.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html)

 

[sneakers]

As a youth, I do agree. I get an occasional (mother Theresa-ish) spiritual emptiness when I’m at school. Why? I go to Mass on Sundays, say my rosary and daily prayers, wear a scapular, even carry around my own tracts for the “bible pushers” that visit campus on occasion (You’re not taking my BVM away from me, dangnabit!).

Anyhow, I’d LOVE to be at ND (was on my list of schools, but waaaay to far for me) and have the chance for a weekly TLM. Yes, the reverence in these masses leave me feeling full, satisfied, after mass and confession on Sundays. Maybe it’s the substitution of altar boys in cassock/surplice for EMHCs in flip-flops, jeans and skin-tight shirts that can’t fathom someone wishing to receive on the tongue.

When we ask this question (Why do young folks want the TLM?) we have to keep in mind that the Catholic Church is O-L-D. The Catholic Church is NOT our church–it is GOD’s Church. This is very important because, for a great number of young folk these days, some things just don’t have much of a meaning if they aren’t backed up by a history. We want things that are connected to the past–we want to EXPERIENCE history instead of reading about it. The fact is, if you want to have history and religion, why not be Catholic? And if you’re a Catholic and want history, why not attend a TLM?

This yearning for the TLM goes even deeper than just wanting to get in touch with our roots. When I attended my first Latin Mass (extraordinary form) one of the first feelings I had after mass was anger. I had just sat through an hour and half of a heavenly mass and benediction–the most wonderful experience of my life. Why hadn’t I had this all of my life? It’s you old fogies that ruined it for us young-uns In all seriousness though, I felt (still do) like a HUGE part of my Catholic heritage was stolen from me by some group in the generation before me that are just old enough that I’d feel very bad about strangling. Frankly, I think alot of young people don’t care what happened, they just want to be close to their Catholic roots (not that anything was wrong with them in the first place). Why were our beautiful churches torn down/renovated into buildings that don’t even resemble a church, Catholic or not? Why in the world does my Newman Center resemble a toilet? (no exaggeration) What happened?
http://www.stmup.org/images/altsplash.jpg
Why can’t I tell a Catholic church from a Protestant worship-space any more? Why has our liturgies become so diluted that I take my roommate (United Church of Christ) to Mass and expect it to be different or special than what he’s accustomed to just to hear him say that Mass was no different from his standard fare Sunday liturgy at the United Church of Christ? Our Theology differs. Our take on the Bible differs, THE EUCHARIST. Why must we be different and also alike? These are questions young people have about our Catholic liturgy that can’t be answered or satisfied without the Latin Mass entering into the equation.

Ahem…sorry for the lengthy post, but I hope you can understand my point.

egads!!! That’s Newman Center! I went there for awhile while I was at IUP. (Looooooong time ago! lol!) I refuse to go to mass there!

 

[Sure]

…whole post…

Great post…I think this really gets to the heart of the matter. What people are looking for is not Latin, it’s the transcendence and reverence that exists in a properly-done liturgy accompanied by the appropriate music.

 

[Wolseley]

Just like, the “flappers”, “hippies” and every other transition of the past.

Novus Ordo Masses…

 

[Domer1997]

Everyone seems to have pretty good posts and reasons why many younger students are attracted to the Tridentine Mass. But, I’ll be honest. Some responses scare me. We aren’t ones to judge the Novus Ordo Mass or any church where Christ is present. For example, the poster who put both pictures of two churches on the message board must realize that there is an obvious difference in artistic styles. Where in history has the Church ever adopted one particular artistic style? NEVER!!! So, if Christ is present, both places are beautiful…PERIOD. You may prefer the artistic style of one over the other, but Christ is 100% present in both. We must never get wrapped up in Semantics and forget what is truly important. All Masses, Novus Ordo, Tridentine, Byzantine, etc… all have the same sacrifice taking place. Let’s not forget this

One poster mentioned not wanting to go to a certain university’s Newman Center. That is fine, but don’t forget that every Mass (and everywhere it is celebrated) is equally as significant in God’s eyes. One doesn’t get more graces by attending a Tridentine Mass then one does from the most modern Mass filled with liturgical abuses. Abuses may be illicit and I do not particular agree with them, but they do not ever take away the presence of Our Lord in the Holy Sacrifice. The most liberal and liturgical abusive priest consecrates the SAME bread and wine into the Holy Body and Blood as does a conservative, orthodox, FSSP priest. We are one body in Christ, and we must REMAIN one body in Christ. I’m scared to death of permanent splinters in the Church. We have to all respect the liturgical practices of all Catholics if we are to fight these splinters. We must realize what is important…THE GRACE from the Sacraments. If language choice takes us away from unification (which I truly don’t think it will) but nonetheless, we are doomed!!!

 

[otjm]

the first one, looks like a auditorium in an art school, a far cry from what a Church that offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should look like! And besides, most Catholic churches ought to look like the second picture. Vatican II, never called for the destruction of the High Altars!

It may be your opinion that Catholic Churches “ought” to look like the second; and I suspect that is because that is what you are most familiar with.

I disagree the first one looks like an auditorium in an art school. It reflects, to me, the power of the Holy Spirit - the 3rd Person of the Trinity, Who so often is left out of the discussion.

When one has preconceived notions of what is “right” and what is “wrong”, then one is going to reject what may be a very legitimate expression of art.

I happen to love the old Masters, particularly the Dutch and Italian ones; tht does not preclude me from loving the Impressionists. There are art forms I have little or no appreciation for, but that does not make them “wrong”, or not art.

Frankly, the high altar picture represents to me art gone amock. There is a concept such as too much of a good thing. I find that altar bordering on extremely distracting. If you like it, fine; I find the alternative picture to be less distracting, and more conducive to focused worship.

And I do not suggest you are wrong and I am right about which one is “better”; what I suggest is that you might try to expand your understanding. Understanding is not the same as preferance.

 

[otjm]

As a bit of an aside, my university has about 15,000 students. Approximately 5000 are Catholic. The Neuman Center is not THAT packed at any mass. Why? Happy-clappy music? Feeling like you’re at a Cream concert? Inability to tell Mass from Protestant worship except for the Consecration? Probably all of the above.

Frustration, is, I think, the real reason that Catholic youths feel drawn to the 100% authentic Tridentine experience.

We could speculate all day as to whether or not all those Catholic students who are not coming to Mass currently would start coming if the EF were offered; and unless and until it is, there will not be anything other than speculation as to why they are not coming now.

However, for what little I know about youth, and what little experience I have and the weak powers of observation granted to me, I would expect a survey with honest answers would include the following: many had little or no Catholic education - maybe once a week, if sports or other programs weren’t interferring; many had parents who did not take them to Mass on a regular basis before college; many (given statistics indicating somewhere between 80 and 90%) are sleeping with their girl friend or boy friend and a few with a friend of the same sex (even with poor or almost non-existent education, people sense deep down this is wrong and are aware of the dissonance between lifestyle and church); some are in rebellion to whatever their parents tried to inculcate; some have no belief; some have a belief structure but their faith has never kicked in (they have intellectual knowledge of Christ, but no relationship); the list goes on and on.

I do not question that reverance is attractive - an can be had in either the OF or the EF (as well as chant, incense, etc.). there are perhsap a few who might start coming back to Mass if it were in Latin - either form; but let’s not kid ourselves why many skip Mass altogether.

 

[VociMike]

Because it actually seems SACRED, it’s not just more of the day to day.

My three children, aged 14, 12 and 10, have been to about 4 TLMs (all Low Masses). When we asked them recently whether they’d rather go to the (early!) TLM or any of the local Novus Ordos, they all (to my great surprise, honestly) said they’d rather go to the TLM. I am being quite sincere when I say that I did not expect that answer, but who am I to argue with the wisdom of children?

My daughter, the 12-year-old, contrasts the TLM with the “waiting for the happy clappy meetings to be over” (local NO Masses).

That being said, for pure spiritual richness I have never attended a Mass more uplifting than some of Fr. Fessio’s Latin NO Masses with choir and schola. But the twits at Ave Maria University have banished that Mass to 8AM this year, guaranteeing that the choir and schola will not show up. Don’t even get me started on that liturgical war…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Part of it is that some people are drawn to tightly written rules, and are more caught up in the rule being followed than they are in the why we have that rule to begin with - form over substance. They perceive the OF to be to flexible, complain about optional prayers, and seem to feel tha there is something - I don’t know what, but it strikes me as if they were looking for magic - in an exactly follwed rubrical pattern. I say that not to be offensive, but I can’t find other words to explain the level of facination and angst blended together that I find in a few.

The criticisms of the flexibility of the OF stem from the fundamental perspective that the liturgy is something handed down to us, received and entered into but not created by us. Cdl. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict has time and time (and time and time…) again lamented the liturgical creativity that inserts the personality of the priest and/or ministers into the liturgical action, and the great number of options in the OF are the easiest point of entry for this creativity.

All of the above says to me that objectively speaking–not merely on the level of tastes in art or feelings–these students perceive a real difference between what they have grown up within their vernacular parishes and what they see at SJC.

It is not the Latin Mass itself that captivates them. If they were to visit a High Anglo Catholic Rite I Episcopalian Solemn Mass, with Cranmerian hieratic English, incense (oh, all of them always comment on the use of incense), the best of the English choral tradition, etc., I expect their comments would be overwhelmingly positive. The point is that they do objectively perceive a difference in degree of loftiness, sacrality, hieraticness and they, with very few exceptions assume that worship of God ought to be hieratic and lofty, even though they have been taught their entire lives that God doesn’t need to be worshiped with special art and music and incense, that it’s a matter of indifference because after all, it’s a real (valid) Mass regardless of the kind of music or decorations…

This is a good point, and one at which the discrepancy between ideal and actual can muddle debates and comparisons of forms. We can say time and again that perceived problem X, Y, or Z is not the fault of the OF, and that’s all fine and good, but what we’re really talking about is a problem between styles of worship that cultivate and instill a feeling of reverence and sacredness versus those that do not. Because of the typical situation on the ground, many people perceive this difference most acutely in a comparison of their EF experience with their OF, even though this needn’t ever have been the case.

When it comes down to it, we could alter liturgical detail A, B, or C and still have a Mass that is pretty much just as reverent, so we wouldn’t need to talk about young people being drawn to the EF, we could just talk about them being drawn to all these different expressions of reverence. Unfortunately, though, once we’ve changed liturgical details A, B, *AND *C (and maybe even D through M, for that matter) we can more easily contrast the two normal experiences of the forms than get into particulars.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Everyone seems to have pretty good posts and reasons why many younger students are attracted to the Tridentine Mass. But, I’ll be honest. Some responses scare me. We aren’t ones to judge the Novus Ordo Mass or any church where Christ is present. For example, the poster who put both pictures of two churches on the message board must realize that there is an obvious difference in artistic styles. Where in history has the Church ever adopted one particular artistic style? NEVER!!! So, if Christ is present, both places are beautiful…PERIOD. You may prefer the artistic style of one over the other, but Christ is 100% present in both. We must never get wrapped up in Semantics and forget what is truly important. All Masses, Novus Ordo, Tridentine, Byzantine, etc… all have the same sacrifice taking place. Let’s not forget this

This attitude contains a grain of truth, but it is precisely the sort of attitude that promotes banality. Yes, we’ll get the same Christ no matter what, but we, as a Church, do, without canonizing one style exclusively, have certain theological and practical principles
that mark out some styles as particularly fitting and others as somewhat inappropriate. If the aesthetic dimension didn’t matter at all, we wouldn’t have lists of norms for ecclesiastical architecture or official preferences for liturgical music, norms regarding materials for vestments and vessels, etc. The Church does want us to pay attention to details and does prefer certain choices to be made, sometimes even mandating them.

Modern subjectivism has left us with the impression that style is just style, all are equal, but in reality beauty has certain objective criteria and certain situations also call for particular styles to be employed. The visual components of worship are also a language, so certain idioms convey particular meanings.

We can see this even in the secular sphere. The president is referred to as “Mr. President.” If an uneducated teen were to call him “Hey, feller,” might not be particularly scandalized but would probably try to inform him of proper protocol so as not to embarrass himself. Perhaps more closely to art, though, think of a job interview. If I went in to an interview and only spoke in a highly poetic iambic pentameter I would probably get lots of sideways glances, no matter how beautifully I managed to express myself; a perhaps erudite but nonetheless straightforward prose would have been more appropriate.

Now let’s consider that giant flame from the picture. No matter what one’s opinion of it might be standing alone, it serves to constantly draw my eyes away from the altar, the point toward which the visual outlay of the church should be directing my attention. Right there is a reason it shouldn’t be used in a church. I’m sure better trained theologians and architects could come up with a host of other reasons why the particular artistic idiom is not well suited to a church sanctuary, no matter what its other merits might be.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

From a 31 yr. old guy that up until about a 9 months ago was an unconfirmed cafeteria Catholic who didn’t believe in the Real Presence, the church’s teaching on ABC or on homosexual couples (i was against abortion, but only because I believed it on secular grounds), let me give my :twocents: :

I just moved to my current parish about one year ago. My church does not have a TLM, but it does has a sung NO Mass with the sung parts (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) being in Latin. The priest uses the high altar, incense is used, etc. That, combined with “orthodox” preaching on saying the rosary, confession, the Real Presence. The priests are so reverent, they really believe and this, combined with the availability of daily confession has brought a real conversion in me. In my parish they say the Angelus before daily mass and the St. Michael prayer after every mass.

I believe it is the sacraments that get people engaged. Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist go hand-in-hand. When confession is not preached, not offerred, and not attended, the healing flames of Christ’s heart cannot do their job. If someone is in mortal sin, I doubt receiving Eucharist does much good (i’m meaning the one, like I was, that was ignornant that receiving while in mortal sin is in itself mortal sin).

As to the two pictures, I don’t like the first. I do believe it is like an auditorium, but where Christ is, so is His people. I bet house Churchs in China and churches in Africa are even more humble then that first picture.

 

[DustinsDad]

…We aren’t ones to judge the Novus Ordo Mass or any church where Christ is present. …

As I like to say, God’s part is always infinitely good at Mass. Man’s part…well, not so much.

These folks are talking about the latter, not the former. In fact, their comments show that they are concerned that our part - the human side of the liturgy - sometimes fail to glorify and give due reverance and honor to God. Many feel that, quite frankly, the TLM - including all the incedentals (classic architecture, music, dress, etc.) does this better. It all together sort of points to God and directs us to the contemplation of Him - lifts our hearts and minds so to speak. That, I think, is the draw of the TLM that many feel - young and old alike.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[VociMike]

As I like to say, God’s part is always infinitely good at Mass. Man’s part…well, not so much.

Yep, God always brings his best to Mass. But do we?