What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

[otjm]

Correct. He is a good diplomat. My contention is one is more reverent than the other and less prone to abuse.

and I disagree with your contention (obviously ) that one is more reverent. He most certainly did not say that in his accompanying letter. And I have not read all his works (just some of them) so I cannot say categorically that he has not said it elsewhere, but I certainly have not seen him quoted as saying that one is more reverent than the other. There is no question that the EF has changed over time much more gradually than the change from the EF to the OF.

As a pope I would expect diplomacy, but as a scholar and professor, one would expect more candor. If he said it in one of his works, I would like to see it quoted appropriately. And if he hasn’t, then perhaps - just perhaps - it is because he does not take that position.

I can certainly see him saying the EF privately - he had said it for years before the OF was promulgated.

Not sure. Perhaps because many liturgical liberals would go into schism.

well, there is de facto schism (which I would hold is what some alleged theologians and others - pew sitters and professed - are, and then there is a declared schism. I kind of doubt that anyone would go declared; as to the rest, effectively they are there already.

I think it tends toward (but is not identical to) the reasoning behind why he does not give CITH; he sticks with the norm, and he has publicly declared the OF is the norm.

He is leading by example.

Only to the extent that he does the norm. However, people are rpesuming that means a value judgement on the indult and it doesn’t. He is not the Pope of the Church of the United States, or the Pope of the Church of the Archdiocese of Chicago. He is the Pope of the Catholic Church and happens to be of the Roman rite (and we can let another thread go on about whether or not a pope could be elected from one of the Eastern rites). As such he will follow the norm, not the indult. Following the indult would simply make no sense, just as repeatedly saying the Divine Mysteries would make no sense.

The essence of what you are trying to do is say that in it essence, the EF is more reverent than the OF. And other than your personal opinion (and that of those who share your opinion), there is no factual evidence adduced. It is akin to arguing that the Maronite rite is more reverent than the EF, or that the Byzantine rite is more reverent than the Maronite rite. They are all the Mass.

It may well be, and most likely is, that some people will feel that one form is more reverent than another, or that they will find more spiritual edification in one than another. That does not establish any essential objective difference in reverence; it is rather a subjective difference, and subjective differences are not wrong; they are simply sui generis. And they are a very valid reason for having both forms available.

 

[pnewton]

I admit that I was at first put off by the “more reverant” talk, until I considered that it has two dimensions. The first way this can be considered is absolutely legitimate, namely, that the TLM is practiced more reverently. This may be in the subjective opinion of a poster or the experience of the poster. In either case, on can not argue with another’s experieince or opinion.

The second is that the TLM is objectively more reverent, due to its greater detail. My response to this is to look to the opposite extreme of the simpliest Mass, the Mass of the early Church. In this we see those willing to be martyred for attending Mass, even before a better understanding of the Mass has made it more detailed and theologically richer. Therefore, I do not see that complexity and richness equates to reverence, objectively speaking.

 

[Joannm]

I think his accompanying letter speaks for itself. Although he has been critical of the way that the OF came about and has been particularly critical of the lack of continuity between the two, he also has not said that one is better, or holier than the other, charges that have been made by others. He also has affirmed that the OF is the mainstay format of the Mass for the Roman rite and has indicated that he does not see that changing in any reasonably foresseable future. He does, however, say that he sees botht he OF and the EF having some changes.

,and has made a point to not say it in public - what does that mean?

this question keeps coming up and I don’t see why. CITH is an indult, and what little I know of it, it is not a universal indult (either in that it was not given as a universal indult, or because if it was, it was up to individual bishops - and perhaps bishops’ conferences - to adopt or not and is not universally practiced). If it is not a universal indult (or even if it was) why would he, who leads the Roman rite, do something that only applied to part of the rite? That would make absolutely no sense. People keep trying to say “See, he doesn’t do it” when there is no reason for him to do it and the fact that it is not universal is reason to not do it. Trying to make something out of the fact that he follows the norm instead of the indult is like trying to make something out of the fact that he says the OF instead of the Maronite Divine Mysteries. He has the power, as head of the Church, to do so but he doesn’t. Trying to make something out of that makes as much sense.and the last comment about correcting the translations has to do with the OF and not with the EF. He is not changing anything in the EF, as the Latin originals are not changing. He is simply seeing that they are correctly translated.

Benedict had nothing to do with the revised English translation. The move to change the translations began years before Benedict became pope. It has been in the works for at least 8 or more years. I saw a copy of green book for the collects back in 2005, just after JP II’s death, which means they were being worked on for some time.

 

[otjm]

Benedict had nothing to do with the revised English translation. The move to change the translations began years before Benedict became pope. It has been in the works for at least 8 or more years. I saw a copy of green book for the collects back in 2005, just after JP II’s death, which means they were being worked on for some time.

You are right; however, when people wish to paint with broad brushes, minor details such as timing and leadership are lost by the wayside. But thanks for injecting a bit of reality into this mayhem!

 

[otjm]

I admit that I was at first put off by the “more reverant” talk, until I considered that it has two dimensions. The first way this can be considered is absolutely legitimate, namely, that the TLM is practiced more reverently. This may be in the subjective opinion of a poster or the experience of the poster. In either case, on can not argue with another’s experieince or opinion.

The second is that the TLM is objectively more reverent, due to its greater detail. My response to this is to look to the opposite extreme of the simpliest Mass, the Mass of the early Church. In this we see those willing to be martyred for attending Mass, even before a better understanding of the Mass has made it more detailed and theologically richer. Therefore, I do not see that complexity and richness equates to reverence, objectively speaking.

Well said. However, in regards to your first paragraph, it would be best suited (particularly in discussions with neophytes) if it were given the caveat that it is personal opinion. Seems to me the theme of this thread might have something to do with it all. Too often personal opinion, particularly when over something that is of importance to the one so opinionated, morphs into “facts”. Coupled with often not so subtle passion, it can turn the neophyte off like a light switch.

 

[Ockham]

To the best of my knowledge, the Pope has never said one form is more reverant than the other. I forgot the new translation was in the works prior to Pope Benedict. We should not forget Pope John Paul II issued the MP in order to bring the TLM back from seclusion.

What if I said JS Bach’s works are of higher quality than Britany Spears? Someone who loves Britany’s music might get offended and counter that they are on par. They might also say my statement was nothing more than a subjective opinion.

My argument is based on the following: to kneel is more reverent than to stand, to genuflect is more reverent then to bow and Calvary was more reverent than the Last Supper.

The emphasis of the Novus Ordo is on community gathering, the Last Supper as opposed to Calvary. Active participation was invoked by lay ministries of lector and EMHC, priest faces the congregation and speaks in the venacular, CITH, more hymns, hand shaking. It was an ecumenical gesture to attract our fallen Christians back to Mother Church.

 

[otjm]

To the best of my knowledge, the Pope has never said one form is more reverant than the other. I forgot the new translation was in the works prior to Pope Benedict. We should not forget Pope John Paul II issued the MP in order to bring the TLM back from seclusion.

What if I said JS Bach’s works are of higher quality than Britany Spears? Someone who loves Britany’s music might get offended and counter that they are on par. They might also say my statement was nothing more than a subjective opinion.

My argument is based on the following: to kneel is more reverent than to stand, to genuflect is more reverent then to bow and Calvary was more reverent than the Last Supper.

The emphasis of the Novus Ordo is on community gathering, the Last Supper as opposed to Calvary. Active participation was invoked by lay ministries of lector and EMHC, priest faces the congregation and speaks in the venacular, CITH, more hymns, hand shaking. It was an ecumenical gesture to attract our fallen Christians back to Mother Church.

Maybe that depends on what Brittney Spears is singing! Were she to sing a Te Deum properly, would that be of highter quality than what passed itself off for symphonic music at one point - a-tonal music? Or perhaps one of the Strauss waltzes? Again, bringing Brittney into the discussion shows that it is not the music (Te Deum) but the singer (priest - i.e. his reverence) that impacts things.

Kneeling in one culture is more reverent than in another; it is culturally biased. It is not objectively, in and of itself more reverent. In some cultures it is a sign of awe and worship, in others it is a sign of penitance. Is awe more reverent than penitance? Likewise genuflecting and bowing; culturally conditioned. I have seen Asians get down on both knees and touch their forhead to the ground, whereas in the same situation, a non-Asian would genuflect with one knee (in the EF, no less) - is one more reverent than the other, or are they culturally different expressions of the same thing?

Do you even know in the OF how many times the word “sacrifice” or mention of Christ’s sacrifice is made in the Eucharistic prayers? Or are you just repeating what you have heard from others and assuming it is true?

And how is eveyone sitting/kneeling/standing in a church built in the 1930’s more a community gathering (have you ever read St Paul and all he has to say about the Body of Christ? Or are you suggesting the Mass has to be about strictly me and Jesus?) in the OF as opposed to the EF?

Have you even been to an Easterrn rite Mass, since you are so critical of where the priest is?

And are you criticizing a 2000 year tradition of use of the vernacular?

Go back and read what Pnewton wrote. I understand that you have subjective feelings toward the EF and I do not criticze them at all. But you are being subjective (this is not bad) and presuming to be objective. 'Tain’t the same.

Gotta go. RCIA class calls (I teach). We will be talking about the Eastern rites.

 

[ProVobis]

To the best of my knowledge, the Pope has never said one form is more reverant than the other. I forgot the new translation was in the works prior to Pope Benedict. We should not forget Pope John Paul II issued the MP in order to bring the TLM back from seclusion.

What if I said JS Bach’s works are of higher quality than Britany Spears? Someone who loves Britany’s music might get offended and counter that they are on par. They might also say my statement was nothing more than a subjective opinion.

My argument is based on the following: to kneel is more reverent than to stand, to genuflect is more reverent then to bow and Calvary was more reverent than the Last Supper.

The emphasis of the Novus Ordo is on community gathering, the Last Supper as opposed to Calvary. Active participation was invoked by lay ministries of lector and EMHC, priest faces the congregation and speaks in the venacular, CITH, more hymns, hand shaking. It was an ecumenical gesture to attract our fallen Christians back to Mother Church.

It sure seems that way.

 

[Timothysis]

Calvary was more reverent than the Last Supper.

This is certainly the most extraordinary thing I have ever read here. From what I remember reading, the soldiers, crowd and the “Bad” thief all mocked and scorned Christ as He hung on the cross. Is this the reverence you’re speaking of?

The emphasis of the Novus Ordo is on community gathering, the Last Supper as opposed to Calvary. Active participation was invoked by lay ministries of lector and EMHC, priest faces the congregation and speaks in the venacular, CITH, more hymns, hand shaking. It was an ecumenical gesture to attract our fallen Christians back to Mother Church.

“*What did the Vatican II Church officially declare about the Mass in reference to Pauline Rite Mass?”

"Hence, the Mass, the Lord's Supper, is at the same time and inseparably:

   1. A sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated
   2. a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said "do this in memory of me" (Lk. 22:19).
   3. a sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the People of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ. *(Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Eucharisticum Mysterium, #C1."

 

[ProVobis]

From Monsignor Klaus Gamber, “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy”

“Apparently the designation of the Mass in the first edition of the Novus Ordo as “the Lord’s Supper or the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord,” has its source in the Protestant theology of the Abendmahl rite, the commemoration meal. The fact that this particular definition of the Mass appears in a document bearing the signature of Pope Paul VI, and that it became necessary later to correct it, is painfully obvious indication of how confused things are in the Church today.”

So much for the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith.

 

[Timothysis]

From Monsignor Klaus Gamber, “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy”

So, we are to take the word of Monsignor Klaus Gamber over that of the Church Herself? If the good Monsignor believed the sky is green and the grass is blue then are we to accept that, too?

So much for the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith.

How far do you wish to extend that argument into the past?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Kneeling in one culture is more reverent than in another; it is culturally biased. It is not objectively, in and of itself more reverent. In some cultures it is a sign of awe and worship, in others it is a sign of penitance. Is awe more reverent than penitance? Likewise genuflecting and bowing; culturally conditioned. I have seen Asians get down on both knees and touch their forhead to the ground, whereas in the same situation, a non-Asian would genuflect with one knee (in the EF, no less) - is one more reverent than the other, or are they culturally different expressions of the same thing?

.

If I recall correctly, the Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome have NEVER knelt for Holy Communion.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So much for the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith.

So much for the Church, then.

 

[Ockham]

This is certainly the most extraordinary thing I have ever read here. From what I remember reading, the soldiers, crowd and the “Bad” thief all mocked and scorned Christ as He hung on the cross. Is this the reverence you’re speaking of?

Obviously I wasn’t there, but I’m willing to guess the execution of our Redeemer was considerably different than the dinner the night before. If you were there wouldn’t you have been much more sombre, respectful, and reverent at the foot of the Cross than at the dinner table? Of course the two are inseparable. Why then does the new Mass and Protestant services diminish Calvary?

 

[otjm]

Obviously I wasn’t there, but I’m willing to guess the execution of our Redeemer was considerably different than the dinner the night before. If you were there wouldn’t you have been much more sombre, respectful, and reverent at the foot of the Cross than at the dinner table? Of course the two are inseparable. Why then does the new Mass and Protestant services diminish Calvary?

Why do you say they diminish it? and why do you focus on Calvary; Calvary by itself only means we have a fool who couldn’t or wouldn’t shut up. It is Calvry and the Resurrection by which we know we are saved.

Yes, Christ was executed on Calvary and that is a somber and sorrowful, as well as excruciating (pun my soul) form of death. But you want to make the focus on Calvary and appear to make it only on that. All four of the Eucharistic Canons of the OF reflect on Calvary, although not enough to suit your desires. If that is all you have, we haven’t much to discuss. It is your comment that the OF is focused on the Sacred Meal; but a more accurate statement might be that it brings the two into better focus as both are essential to our Faith. The OF does not diminish Calvary; it brings better balance to the two aspects of the Eucharist.

 

[otjm]

If I recall correctly, the Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome have NEVER knelt for Holy Communion.

I would have to rely on malphono or aramis for that.

 

[Ockham]

Calvary by itself only means we have a fool who couldn’t or wouldn’t shut up.

Fool?

Most OF parish bulletins will advertise: Mass Times or Eucharist. Most EF parishes will advertise Holy Sacrifice of The Mass.

The Blessed Sacrament was started at the Last Supper and finished on the Cross. By His Resurrection He saved the world. At Mass we are recreating the unbloody Sacrafice. Protestants focus on the communal meal and Resurection and don’t have the Sacrament.

 

[malphono]

JKirkLVNV;6526788:

If I recall correctly, the Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome have NEVER knelt for Holy Communion.

I would have to rely on malphono or aramis for that.

That’s about right, at least in theory. The Byzantines invariably stand. The same is traditionally true in the Oriental Churches too, but in several of them (Syro-Malabar, Maronite, Chaldean, and although I’m not 100% sure, perhaps Armenian as well), the Latin custom of kneeling was adopted. That would have been sometime in the late 16th-early 17th century, but has now (over the course of the last 40+ years) been pretty well abandoned in favor of reversion to the traditional standing posture by the Maronites & Chaldeans (not sure about the Syro-Malabars). I could be wrong, but to my knowledge the remaining Oriental Churches were never affected by that particular latinization.

 

[Timothysis]

Obviously I wasn’t there, but I’m willing to guess the execution of our Redeemer was considerably different than the dinner the night before. If you were there wouldn’t you have been much more sombre, respectful, and reverent at the foot of the Cross than at the dinner table? Of course the two are inseparable. Why then does the new Mass and Protestant services diminish Calvary?

You refer to the Last Supper, the first Eucharist, as a “dinner?” Wow. Jesus gave Himself body and soul, blood and divinity to those at that “dinner.” Yet, according to you, it wasn’t as “reverent” as at the foot of the Cross, though “of course the two are inseparable.” You see, this is what I don’t understand about you people; why does everything have to be “either/or?”

If you, with your knowledge of all things Catholic, cannot see the Sacrifice of the Mass in the OF then there is nothing that anyone here can say that will open your eyes. Statements of your as above and “* to kneel is more reverent than to stand, to genuflect is more reverent then to bow and Calvary was more reverent than the Last Supper”* give me cause to think that you really may not be able to see the forest for the trees.

 

[Ockham]

If you, with your knowledge of all things Catholic, cannot see the Sacrifice of the Mass in the OF then there is nothing that anyone here can say that will open your eyes. Statements of your as above and “* to kneel is more reverent than to stand, to genuflect is more reverent then to bow and Calvary was more reverent than the Last Supper”* give me cause to think that you really may not be able to see the forest for the trees.

I realize that is the difference between Traditional and Non Traditional Catholics. The Novus Ordo is a more relaxed communal meal vibe than the TLM’s focus on Calvary. As both forms are legal you are free to choose where to spend your time and worship.