What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

[Layman]

Not necessarily true.
So are the OF’s.
Not necessarily true.
That’s too bad. It’s also not necessarily true. Relax? You’re on edge to begin with?
Not necessarily true.
What?
Same at the OF – the miracle of miracles.

But largely true.

OF masses are busier and noiser because there are more responses, the laity are more involved, they’re unvested and the participants in the sanctuary are facing the congregation. Add in modern hymns and the atmosphere is different to the EF.

It’s a contradiction; a sacred rite with mundane elements added over the years and sacred (set apart) ones taken away. I think the idea is to get the laity more involved but that militates against creating a reverent atmosphere.

More mundane elements + fewer sacred ones = people are cued it’s not such a big deal. Then you have people say “We need more and better catechesis” to counter this. To which I say catechesis should start in the Mass itself.

To return to the thread topic: I’ve read you should go to the EF/TLM for three months straight, to decide if you like it or not.

 

[srp643]

Simple. Open the 1962 Missal and just reflect on the actual prayers in the EF, all the way through. Nothing else comes close. When the priest approaches you with the Lord in the Eucharist, what does he actually say? and how does that compare to the alternative? so, which one is more efficacious?

If the world and its ways were represented by a fire, the EF prayers provide the greatest of firehoses. It produced effectively all of our saints.

 

[ChurchTorch]

I think what the poster meant by this one is that there is a lot of chatter at the NO, whether it is myriad lay people moving in and out of the sanctuary for one reason or another to address their peers, or the required talking and answers in the NO that are often answered by the choir in the TLM (or are simply just not part of the traditional mass).

That has absolutely nothing to do with the formulation of the Mass! To suggest there is a linkage between the OF and “chatter” is simply ridiculous.

The OF is the liturgy more than 99% of the entire Church attends, East and West. Those that attend the EF in comparatively tiny numbers typically have a fetish about silence (just look at these forums) – and GOOD for them! It’s that peer pressure in that environment that keeps the noise down, not the rubrics of the Mass.

 

[ChurchTorch]

Simple. Open the 1962 Missal and just reflect on the actual prayers in the EF, all the way through. Nothing else comes close. When the priest approaches you with the Lord in the Eucharist, what does he actually say? and how does that compare to the alternative? so, which one is more efficacious?

If the world and its ways were represented by a fire, the EF prayers provide the greatest of firehoses. It produced effectively all of our saints.

So you say. Thankfully your opinion isn’t authoritative. To infer the Church somehow replaced superior prayers with inferior ones is ludicrous. The EF’s prayers are certainly more verbose. That does not make them any better however.

 

[ChurchTorch]

But largely true.

So you say.

OF masses are busier and noiser because there are more responses, the laity are more involved, they’re unvested and the participants in the sanctuary are facing the congregation. Add in modern hymns and the atmosphere is different to the EF.

“Different?” Perhaps, depending on the formulation of the OF. “Busier and noisier?” Not necessarily.

It’s a contradiction; a sacred rite with mundane elements added over the years and sacred (set apart) ones taken away. I think the idea is to get the laity more involved but that militates against creating a reverent atmosphere.

What “mundane” elements? And who judged them to be “mundane?” You?

More mundane elements + fewer sacred ones = people are cued it’s not such a big deal. Then you have people say “We need more and better catechesis” to counter this. To which I say catechesis should start in the Mass itself.

Which “sacred elements” were lost?

To return to the thread topic: I’ve read you should go to the EF/TLM for three months straight, to decide if you like it or not.

I’ve been going for 3 years. My first choice is the OF celebrated with great solemnity and pageantry – much like the Pope does. Then the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. The an EF High Mass or Missa Cantata. I do not care for the EF Low Mass.

 

[ChurchTorch]

People would have to “settle” for the EF? Funny, thing: when some (perhaps overly zealous) posters have said “settle for the OF” (or words to that effect), the proponents of the OF consistently jump down their throats for denigrating it. Anyway, the word “impinge” is still very much out of place. Whether one likes it or not, the EF is Holy Mass.

The implication there is that somehow the EF is not. That goes beyond offensive. Whether one likes it or not, the EF is Holy Mass.

It seems clear that the EF is of no interest to you. No reason to continue on this particular carousel.

Clear to whom? You? Nice cutting remark disguised as a conclusion you don’t have the information to even make.

 

[mick321]

Clear to whom? You? Nice cutting remark disguised as a conclusion you don’t have the information to even make.

OK. What is your interest in the EF?

 

[Layman]

Mundane elements added to the OF Mass:

• The vernacular;
• Unvested laity;
• Unvested laity reading the epistle;
• Priest facing the congregation;
• Mundane objects, like kids drawings, on the altar;
• Women now allowed in the sanctuary during Mass;
• Folk hymns;
• EMHCs giving Communion in the hand.

Sacred (set apart) elements taken away:

• Altar rails;
• Priest facing East, away from the congregation;
• Only vested men allowed in the sanctuary during Mass;
• Latin;
• Communion, kneeling, on the tongue;
• Ancient hymns;
• Ancient prayers.

Add in modern, minimalist churches (mostly built after the 50’s) and it’s not surprising people are behaving more casually at Mass; they’re being cued it’s not something to be too worried about. Even the Mass itself is ‘celebrated’ rather than merely said. It’s put across as a communal occasion rather than an awesome rite of sacrifice. Not much mention of Sin, Hell, Death and Judgement. So relax! Take it easy. Be a nice person and you’ll get to Heaven.

 

[Onegin]

Mundane elements added to the OF Mass:

• The vernacular;
• Unvested laity;
• Unvested laity reading the epistle;
• Priest facing the congregation;
• Mundane objects, like kids drawings, on the altar;
• Women now allowed in the sanctuary during Mass;
• Folk hymns;
• EMHCs giving Communion in the hand.

Sacred (set apart) elements taken away:

• Altar rails;
• Priest facing East, away from the congregation;
• Only vested men allowed in the sanctuary during Mass;
• Latin;
• Communion, kneeling, on the tongue;
• Ancient hymns;
• Ancient prayers.

Add in modern, minimalist churches (mostly built after the 50’s) and it’s not surprising people are behaving more casually at Mass; they’re being cued it’s not something to be too worried about. Even the Mass itself is ‘celebrated’ rather than merely said. It’s put across as a communal occasion rather than an awesome rite of sacrifice. Not much mention of Sin, Hell, Death and Judgement. So relax! Take it easy. Be a nice person and you’ll get to Heaven.

Good post. I think you’re spot on.

 

[peary]

The laity have a RIGHT to celebrate and participate in it.

 

[CatholicGuy22]

Both forms of mass are beautiful and niether is better than the other one. It all comes down to what you like best. I have a feeling some traditionalists here are trying to make us think that the Traditional mass is better and that the new mass are to much like a sunday obligation at a protestant church. Both are great and i wish there was more traditional masses in my area.

 

[tradboy]

I do not per se have a problem with people maturely and rationally comparing the TLM and the NO, if that yields some useful objective arguments.

“You can’t compare as both are the Mass” is not a sustainable argument. When in the Gulag a priest would say the words of consecration over a thimble full of wine and a crust of bread laid on his chest, that was also the Mass. But that is not how the Mass should be celebrated in ordinary circumstances nor the best way to give God the honour he is due. Beautiful, touching and courageous as such a Mass must have been.

In fact, they must be the same type of thing or have the same purpose to allow us to compare. We can only compare whether a car or a bicycle is better because they are both forms of transport.

Now for reasons of policy it may be better not to compare as that could cause offence. But I would hope that the people in these forums were a bit more mature than that.

St. Thomas teaches that we should give the best possible argument for a position that is not ours. I am going to try and would like to invite others to do so, to see it we can find what really makes the TLM distinctive (if it is):

We can only compare the TLM and the NO on the basis of the official forms of both i.e that is, said according to the rubrics. One of the differences is that the TLM has more rigid rubrics that may be a point of difference that makes the TLM better, but that is a different issue.

Age: In and of itself can hardly be a criteria. At some stage both the Latin and Greek litugies were new.

When the Slavic liturgies were introduced, they were newer than the NO and the Greek and Latin litugies were nealry a thousand years old. Would anyone like to argue that on that basis alone the Russian liturgy is significantly inferior to the TLM or the Byzantine Liturgy. Of course it could be argued that their is significant continuity between the Russian and Byzantine Liturgies. But it was still a new thing.

It is not the newness per se but the nature of the Rite that we should be considering.

Silence: Sung Asperges, Sung Propers, Orchestral Masses, Hymn for the offertory, I do not think we can call the TLM in all its forms silent. And why should we be silent in Mass?

Also people seem to have an idea that the TLM was offered with absolute conformity in all countries before the Council that is simply not true. While the rubrics of the mass were the same the faithful participated in different ways adapted to the culture and traditions of their own countries. I have heard of numerous cases were it was the custom to sing vernacular hymns right through mass (excluding the Canon).

Beautiful: There is a subjective element to beauty, one man’s beautiful is another man’s boring. Some may think an austere Carthusian church beautiful but a Baroque church gaudy and distracting. Another man with different tastes may feel that the Carthusian church is plain. I can come to understand intellectually the reasons behind both styles and what they are trying to achieve, but I may still find one more of less leautiful than the other.

Argument from experience: Some say if you experience it you will like it, but some experience it and do not like, well experience it some more, most trads say. Then you will like it. But what are the good reasons that I should go to the trouble in the first place?

Also people tend to list a number of satements. It is X,Y and Z But why should X,Y and Z . be taken into consideration.

Many people appear to be arguing from their feelings, but those feelings may change so what are the real bedrock points?

Help!!!

 

[Layman]

Want to attend a rite where every effort has been made to convey the sacred, beautiful and reverent, maturing over hundreds of years? Go to a sung Latin Mass.

Want to attend a rite where the participants have a wide latitude as to how they can insert themselves and their personal preferences into the rite, one made up forty years ago and still changing? Go to a Novus Ordo Mass. You can hand out Communion, pick your favourite hymns, read from the altar in your civvies.

I’m just tired of being part of an ongoing experiment. The point of a ritual is its otherness and its appeal to the Other World. The N.O. militates against this; the mundane has been inserted all over it.

 

[Timothysis]

Want to attend a rite where every effort has been made to convey the sacred, beautiful and reverent, maturing over hundreds of years? Go to a sung Latin Mass.

Want to attend a rite where the participants have a wide latitude as to how they can insert themselves and their personal preferences into the rite, one made up forty years ago and still changing? Go to a Novus Ordo Mass. You can hand out Communion, pick your favourite hymns, read from the altar in your civvies.

I’m just tired of being part of an ongoing experiment. The point of a ritual is its otherness and its appeal to the Other World. The N.O. militates against this; the mundane has been inserted all over it.

If you’re going to pick the extremes, then why not say, “if you want to go to mass where you can sit there like a statue, daydream without interruption, say the rosary instead of following along and mumble phrases in latin that you don’t pronounce correctly or even understand their meaning, then go to a latin mass.”

You see, it swings both ways. If being hung up on the ritual is your thing, then fine. But some people, in order to worship God with their whole heart, soul and mind prefer things that they can truly embrace, instead of uttering responses like a robot.

I will restate what someone here once wrote; their grandmother was 80 years old, Portuguese, and learned and prayed the prayers in latin her whole life and *never once knew what it was she was praying. * You see, your ideas of "sacred, beautiful and reverent" may be mundane to others. Instead of trying to constantly tow the our Mass is better than your Mass line, why don’t you try to find and appreciate what embraces others in the OF? After all, we’re all there for the same reason, aren’t we???

 

[malphono]

If being hung up on the ritual is your thing, then fine. But some people, in order to worship God with their whole heart, soul and mind prefer things that they can truly embrace, instead of uttering responses like a robot.

Tim … while I don’t agree with it, I do know your point, but was it really necessary to take it that far? I’m not currently (nor do I plan to be) involved here, but yet I feel offended.

 

[Timothysis]

Tim … while I don’t agree with it, I do know your point, but was it really necessary to take it that far? I’m not currently (nor do I plan to be) involved here, but yet I feel offended.

Tell me, were you offended by Layman’s post? If yes or no, then why?

P.S. I certainly do not mean to offend anyone.

 

[malphono]

Tell me, were you offended by Layman’s post? If yes or no, then why?

Whether or not I was offended by the previous poster is really not the point. It’s no secret that I’m not a fan of the OF, and it’s also no secret that wouldn’t put things the same way as did the other poster. But of course my feelings on the matter are probably for somewhat different reasons. I’ll leave it at that.

P.S. I certainly do not mean to offend anyone.

Thank you. That’s good enough for me.

 

[Layman]

If you’re going to pick the extremes, then why not say, “if you want to go to mass where you can sit there like a statue, daydream without interruption, say the rosary instead of following along and mumble phrases in latin that you don’t pronounce correctly or even understand their meaning, then go to a latin mass.”

You see, it swings both ways. If being hung up on the ritual is your thing, then fine. But some people, in order to worship God with their whole heart, soul and mind prefer things that they can truly embrace, instead of uttering responses like a robot.

I will restate what someone here once wrote; their grandmother was 80 years old, Portuguese, and learned and prayed the prayers in latin her whole life and *never once knew what it was she was praying. * You see, your ideas of "sacred, beautiful and reverent" may be mundane to others. Instead of trying to constantly tow the our Mass is better than your Mass line, why don’t you try to find and appreciate what embraces others in the OF? After all, we’re all there for the same reason, aren’t we???

You have shifted the grounds of my argument. I mentioned exterior elements and you speak about how an individual might react. Want to evoke awe and reverence in people? Use acts and symbols conducive to it. Don’t go casual and personal and then expect awe.

You can utter responses like a robot in the O.F, also. It’s easier. It’s in the local lingo. Whereas in the E.F, the priest will turn to you and say: “Dominus vobiscum” occasionally. And after two years at the E.F., it still feels like a privilege to say back “Et cum spirito tuo”.

That person’s grandmother, like everyone else, had the opportunity to learn what the words meant (assuming she was literate). Or not. The Latin Mass gives you something to get involved in. It can be educational, if you want it. Or you can pray along as best you can. Either way, you can be sanctified.

The O.F. is flat. You can understand all the words, which being in the local lingo, can acquire vulgar meanings.** If you get a hip priest, who chases after his congregation instead of trying to lead them, you can end up with a banal rite; a missed opportunity to inspire and point out to oppressed people the Other World and a noble Way. **

It’s supposed to be a glimpse of Heaven, isn’t it?

Then: a quavery “Bind Us Together”, Mrs. Goodlady in her civvies handing out Communion, hymns as ancient as … oh … the 1970’s, in a stripped-out church and lets transfer the feast day to Sunday as it might get more people in and so on and so on …

 

[ChurchTorch]

Mundane elements added to the OF Mass:

• The vernacular;
• Unvested laity;
• Unvested laity reading the epistle;
• Priest facing the congregation;
• Mundane objects, like kids drawings, on the altar;
• Women now allowed in the sanctuary during Mass;
• Folk hymns;
• EMHCs giving Communion in the hand.

Sacred (set apart) elements taken away:

• Altar rails;
• Priest facing East, away from the congregation;
• Only vested men allowed in the sanctuary during Mass;
• Latin;
• Communion, kneeling, on the tongue;
• Ancient hymns;
• Ancient prayers.

Add in modern, minimalist churches (mostly built after the 50’s) and it’s not surprising people are behaving more casually at Mass; they’re being cued it’s not something to be too worried about. Even the Mass itself is ‘celebrated’ rather than merely said. It’s put across as a communal occasion rather than an awesome rite of sacrifice. Not much mention of Sin, Hell, Death and Judgement. So relax! Take it easy. Be a nice person and you’ll get to Heaven.

I reject your definitions! All you are doing is listing your personal preferences and attacking those you personally dislike.

 

[ChurchTorch]

If you’re going to pick the extremes, then why not say, “if you want to go to mass where you can sit there like a statue, daydream without interruption, say the rosary instead of following along and mumble phrases in latin that you don’t pronounce correctly or even understand their meaning, then go to a latin mass.”

You see, it swings both ways. If being hung up on the ritual is your thing, then fine. But some people, in order to worship God with their whole heart, soul and mind prefer things that they can truly embrace, instead of uttering responses like a robot.

I will restate what someone here once wrote; their grandmother was 80 years old, Portuguese, and learned and prayed the prayers in latin her whole life and *never once knew what it was she was praying. * You see, your ideas of "sacred, beautiful and reverent" may be mundane to others. Instead of trying to constantly tow the our Mass is better than your Mass line, why don’t you try to find and appreciate what embraces others in the OF? After all, we’re all there for the same reason, aren’t we???

All very true.

I think some need to get past the notion that their personal preferences are “better” than other options the Church allows. Some people have simply never learned how to think in that manner. They feel it’s better for some illogical reason (which is fine – emotion plays a big part in liturgy) but they go too far and try to offer their personal preferences as logically superior choices and they simply are not. They do not grasp this and it turns others off.

One can obviously prefer one liturgy over the other. But to suggest one is objectively superior than the other is absurd. A truism lost on some.