What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

[Layman]

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

I’ve listed differences between the Masses and the effects they’re likely to have. If you have a contrary argument, please make it.

 

[Timothysis]

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.

If you must chant the liturgy in an ancient language that no one in the congregation understands to “evoke awe and reverence in people,” then I think that somehow the whole point is possibly being missed. The rich man walked away sad after seeing Jesus face to face because He told him to sell all that he had. Should Jesus have done something to “evoke awe and reverence” in the man?

I will relate this again; in the weekly bulletin at my church Monsignor wrote that it really doesn’t matter what language the liturgy is in, or if the priest faces the altar or the congregation; what matters is that the priest intends to do what the Church intends him to do, and that is to change simple bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And no, Monsignor is not a “liberal” or “progressive.”

 

[tradboy]

But to suggest one is objectively superior than the other is absurd. A truism lost on some.

Kindly define your terms, What do you mean by truism? If you mean a self-evident truth such as “All bachelors are unmarried” then you are clearly wrong because the statements
“The NO is superior to the TLM” or the “TLM is superior to the NO” are neither truisms in that the term TLM and the term NO neither by defintion include the concept of superiority.

In a truism such as “All bachelors are unmarried.” the term bachelor includes the concept “umarried man”.

 

[tradboy]

I will relate this again; in the weekly bulletin at my church Monsignor wrote that it really doesn’t matter what language the liturgy is in, or if the priest faces the altar or the congregation; what matters is that the priest intends to do what the Church intends him to do, and that is to change simple bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And no, Monsignor is not a “liberal” or “progressive.”

If it is the case that “all that matters is that the priest intends to do what the Church intends him to do” then any form of ritual, guitar banging or the Solemnes monks is superflous and can be done away with. We should just gather once a week for ten minutes to have the priest say the words of consecration and receive communion and then go home.

Hey, if that is all that really matters I can live with that. OF, EF, Byzantine Rite wouldn’t matter to me.

Somehow I think something else is at stake here.

 

[Timothysis]

If it is the case that “all that matters is that the priest intends to do what the Church intends him to do” then any form of ritual, guitar banging or the Solemnes monks is superflous and can be done away with. We should just gather once a week for ten minutes to have the priest say the words of consecration and receive communion and then go home.

Hey, if that is all that really matters I can live with that. OF, EF, Byzantine Rite wouldn’t matter to me.

Somehow I think something else is at stake here.

Yes, something else is at stake here. What you fail to realize is that Mass is not about what you or I want or prefer. Mass should always be celebrated with dignity and reverence. In regards to that, it really doesn’t matter what language in which the liturgy is celebrated. But remember, that the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy occurred because the celebrating priest suffered from recurring doubts regarding transubstantiation while celebrating the Mass according to the Latin Rite in the year 700. So yes, I would say that the “intention of the priest” is of paramount importance to the celebration of the liturgy.

 

[tradboy]

Let us see what we agree on.

Mass should always be celebrated with dignity and reverence.

I concede.

it really doesn’t matter what language in which the Liturgy is celebrated.

A couple of points:

I concede that per se the language of the Liturgy is not decisive. Masses or Divine liturgies that could be called traditional are celebrated in a variety of languages which are either a vernacular or understandable to the faithful.

The Novus Ordo was promulgated in Latin, it is also a Latin Mass and is said in Latin, see EWTN and many celebrations in the Vatican.

So this statement is actually besides the point as Latin is actually something both the NO and the TLM have in common. We could examine it seperately later.

I would say that the “intention of the priest” is of paramount importance to the celebration of the liturgy.

I concede, if you really mean what you are saying that the intention of the priest is primary, essential etc. If I was being pedantic I may wish to say that the Form and the Matter are also paramount and not only the intention of the priest.

but what you said earlier is that “all” that matters is the intention of priest (and I assume we can add the matter and the form to that)

The difference is as follows:

Let us say you and I were sitting at a table eating a meal (as Trads and NO Catholics can sometimes do without coming to blows) and you sarted choking. Now, I could grab my steak knife and perform an emergency tracheotomy. But if someone at the next table could perform the Heimlich manoeuvre perhaps it would be better if they did that.

It is essential or paramount that we save your life and that is both my and our neighbours intention and both means would be equally effective in achieving that end, but surely one is better than the other.

If you disagree I can start sharpening the steak knife

What you fail to realize is that Mass is not about what you or I want or prefer.

I actually agree 100% that our preference is besides the point. Would you agree if it turns out that the TLM is in fact better? What actually matters are the objective facts.

Kindly do not judge rashly what I do or do not realise. I would like to have a polite and constructive conversation with you.

 

[Layman]

The rich man walked away sad after seeing Jesus face to face because He told him to sell all that he had. Should Jesus have done something to “evoke awe and reverence” in the man?

What does that have to do with the rite of the Mass? My point is simple: if you want to evoke awe and reverence in people why insert mundane elements and take out sacred ones? It’s contradictory.

I will relate this again; in the weekly bulletin at my church Monsignor wrote that it really doesn’t matter what language the liturgy is in, or if the priest faces the altar or the congregation; what matters is that the priest intends to do what the Church intends him to do, and that is to change simple bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And no, Monsignor is not a “liberal” or “progressive.”

That’s just an argument for the validity of a Mass. It says nothing about the value of the actions, attire, prayers, music, Church architecture and furniture in conveying a sense the holy to the congregation.

 

[PJM]

=tradboy;6417649]I have been the main mover behind starting a TLM in my parish. We have a great group of people but we are struggling to grow.

What in your experience is the best argument to support the TLM?

The Salvation of souls!

PEW Report 2008

in 1970 about 73% of self professed Catholics attended regullarly Sunday and Holyday Mass.

In 2007 that numer had dropped to 25%

in 1970 better than 60% of this same group went to Confession at least once a year.

In 2007 that number had dropped to 10%

While the Novus Ordo is not the ONLY reason; it’s focus on community and numerous
lay-assistant priest; is the primary reason.

 

[Timothysis]

I do not play the "which form of the Mass is better" game. The sacrifice of the Mass is just that, the sacrifice of the Mass, whether it be according to the Pauline Missal, the Tridentinte Missal, the Marionite liturgy, the Byzantine liturgy or any one of the many valid liturgies. They are all different means to an end, that being the consecration of simple bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ for the sanctification of our souls. In that regard, they are all equally the same.

Do you happen to have “objective facts” that somehow “prove” that the TLM is “better” than any other liturgy?

 

[srp643]

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.

Likewise, thank God Almighty yours is as well. A nice try though. The pope has used some pretty strong language about the problems with the OF, you may want to read some of his books on the liturgy and reflect. As for verbosity, you’re missing part of the point - entire prayers were eliminated, not just reduced, in the OF. Have you ever heard of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar? They’re beautiful, humbling and efficacious. Last time I checked, they were entirely eliminated in the OF for no apparent reason. I’ll also remind you that you are in the Traditional Forum.

 

[ChurchTorch]

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 EF 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 EF militates against this; the mundane has been inserted all over it.

No it does not.

 

[ChurchTorch]

I’ve listed differences between the Masses and the effects they’re likely to have. If you have a contrary argument, please make it.

Yes you have listed differences. And they are indeed differences. The problem is you don’t stop there. You then opine that somehow those elements are superior within the EF. If you offered them as your opinion (and they are certainly nothing more) I wouldn’t respond. We are all entitled to our opinions.

But to offer your personal opinions as if they are tested facts is very wrong.

That’s done all the time on this forum. Someone offers a false premise as if it’s a proven fact. From there they “pyramid” onto the false foundation from the false premise to a false conclusion.

 

[ChurchTorch]

Likewise, thank God Almighty yours is as well. A nice try though. The pope has used some pretty strong language about the problems with the OF, you may want to read some of his books on the liturgy and reflect. As for verbosity, you’re missing part of the point - entire prayers were eliminated, not just reduced, in the OF. Have you ever heard of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar? They’re beautiful, humbling and efficacious. Last time I checked, they were entirely eliminated in the OF for no apparent reason. I’ll also remind you that you are in the Traditional Forum.

I’ve read his books. In no way is the EF objectively superior (or inferior for that matter) to the OF. You might desperately wish otherwise but it’s just not that way. I don’t even believe it’s possible for the Church to promulgate a sacrificial liturgy that is intrinsically and objectively superior to another approved sacrificial liturgy. Do different people prefer different liturgies? Of course. Does that make one of the other universally superior or inferior? Of course not.

What about the prayers at the foot of the altar? What’s your point?

 

[tradboy]

My point is simple: if you want to evoke awe and reverence in people why insert mundane elements and take out sacred ones?

This is a good point but I think the problem is that you don’t explain why we want to evoke awe and reverence.

Awe is a feeling, it comes and goes and can be attached to religious experiences or to any other kind of experience. So I may find a performance of Beethoven’s Ninth awe-inspiring or Jimi Henrix playing the guitar, or the Golden Gate Bridge, or I even may be awed by a WWE wrestler if I was in the ring with him. Does that mean we should have those elements in the Mass.

The problem does appear to be as, Church Torch suggests, that we are resting our argument primarily on feelings.

But in the spriritual life we know that sensible consolations can be denied us when we seek greater perfection. So it is quite conceiveable that if we were more advanced in the spititual life we may find all that consoles and strengthens us in the TLM dry and repugnant.

I think we need to get down to the fundamental questions and then build up from there.

 

[tradboy]

I do not play the "which form of the Mass is better" game.

I hope you do not think I am playing a game or that this is a game. I really want to understand your reasons and test my thinking against them. I have no interest in scoring points nor am I trying to get you to come to the TLM.

You make some valid points (as concern subjectivity) and others that are invalid. I am trying to rationally examine you points, find those that stand up to the test of common-sense, propose them as common ground and then on that basis deepen the discussion.

The sacrifice of the Mass is just that, the sacrifice of the Mass, whether it be according to the Pauline Missal, the Tridentinte Missal, the Marionite liturgy, the Byzantine liturgy or any one of the many valid liturgies. They are all different means to an end, that being the consecration of simple bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ for the sanctification of our souls. In that regard, they are all equally the same.

Conceded twice already and for the third time conceded. As far, and only as far, as they achieve the same end, the consecration of the species, they are the same.

But same effect would be achieved if we all gathered in a shopping mall and the priest said the words of consecration and distributed communion. Would the OF be better or worse than that or would it be the same as you appear to a contend?

Do you happen to have “objective facts” that somehow “prove” that the TLM is “better” than any other liturgy?

No, not a complete answer. Actually I was hoping by a dialogue with people on this forum to move towards one. I have been listening to the talk that was mentioned earlier ( I think the second post). It offers some very interesting points to consider.

 

[tradboy]

I don’t even believe it’s possible for the Church to promulgate a sacrificial liturgy that is intrinsically and objectively superior to another approved sacrificial liturgy.

In this case it is important to distinguish between two possible interpretations of what you are saying:

1. The Church could not promulgate an invalid liturgy (That is, I think, a much debated theological question that is, I believe, an open question) For the sake of our discussion I would concede that point though.
2. That validity aside the church could not promulgate an intrinsically and objectively superior (or inferior) liturgy.

With this second proposition I must disagree. If this were the case then the liturgy would only be changed on the basis of whim.

The whole exercise to change the NO would be a huge waste of time and money, Benedict XVI and John Paul II fools and the whole thing a plot to bilk some money out of the dumb faithful for new missals etc.

The above reason is not a very good argument (as all three reasons given could be true - I don’t think they are but I am trying to remove sentiment and emotion from my argument) and also I am counting on the fact that you do not want to say that the Pope is a fool, so it is more rhetorical than logical. I will try and think of another. Perhaps someone can help me. I just feel that your statement is wrong.

 

[Layman]

Yes you have listed differences. And they are indeed differences. The problem is you don’t stop there. You then opine that somehow those elements are superior within the EF. If you offered them as your opinion (and they are certainly nothing more) I wouldn’t respond. We are all entitled to our opinions.

But to offer your personal opinions as if they are tested facts is very wrong.

That’s done all the time on this forum. Someone offers a false premise as if it’s a proven fact. From there they “pyramid” onto the false foundation from the false premise to a false conclusion.

I have said that objectively mundane, populist elements have been added to the O.F and sacred (set apart) ones taken away. I’ve proposed that this must affect the attitude of the participants in the rite. The evidence is in your local Church every Sunday. Observe the casual behaviour, compared to the old rite. Go to an O.F. and then an E.F. in the same church, if you can. If nothing else, the form of the E.F. discourages chatting in church and doesn’t allow the priests and servers much leeway in personal expression or improvisation.

You can go to an E.F., interiorly participate as much as you want without being disturbed by constant vernacular responses or activity in the sanctuary.

And all you have said to rebut this, is: “That’s just your opinion”.

 

[Lujack]

I have said that objectively mundane, populist elements have been added to the O.F and sacred (set apart) ones taken away. I’ve proposed that this must affect the attitude of the participants in the rite. The evidence is in your local Church every Sunday. Observe the casual behaviour, compared to the old rite. Go to an O.F. and then an E.F. in the same church, if you can. If nothing else, the form of the E.F. discourages chatting in church and doesn’t allow the priests and servers much leeway in personal expression or improvisation.

You can go to an E.F., interiorly participate as much as you want without being disturbed by constant vernacular responses or activity in the sanctuary.

And all you have said to rebut this, is: “That’s just your opinion”.

See, the thing is that you are conflating the way people have chosen to act in certain churches with things that are inherent to the ordinary form rite. For example, there are no children’s drawings on the altar at the OF parish I attend right now. What you haven’t done is you haven’t separated liturgical abuses from the proper practice of the Ordinary Form.

If we were to immediately impose the EF on all parishes right now, you’d see many of the same problems that you listed occurring regardless of what form the Mass is said in. The EF is protected from those abuses now because it is only celebrated by people who have worked hard to gain the opportunity to celebrate it and to attend it. In a sense, it is protected in a bubble right now, and doesn’t have to contend with the liturgical abuses that the Ordinary Form does.

 

[Joannm]

See, the thing is that you are conflating the way people have chosen to act in certain churches with things that are inherent to the ordinary form rite. For example, there are no children’s drawings on the altar at the OF parish I attend right now. What you haven’t done is you haven’t separated liturgical abuses from the proper practice of the Ordinary Form.

If we were to immediately impose the EF on all parishes right now, you’d see many of the same problems that you listed occurring regardless of what form the Mass is said in. The EF is protected from those abuses now because it is only celebrated by people who have worked hard to gain the opportunity to celebrate it and to attend it. In a sense, it is protected in a bubble right now, and doesn’t have to contend with the liturgical abuses that the Ordinary Form does.

You make an excellent point. Right now a certain type of person, if you will, attends the EF. If your more “ordinary” Sunday mass attendee would start attending the EF, lets say just becase it is offered at a more convenient time, you would probably see the same kind of behavior that the OP happens to see at his parish (it doesn’t exist at mine) encroach upon the EF. Part of the problem is that society in general is more informal. Back when I was a kid, we dressed up for things, even for traveling we wore dresses. Going out to dinner meant dressinng up. Now days no one dresses up for anything. Conversations are more formal and with the advent of cell phones (which drive me crazy in and out of church) people really don’t think about how their conversations affect others. Just going to the EF is not going to change the way people act.

 

[Layman]

Certainly, liberties could be taken with the E.F. but they’d look meddlesome, nowadays.

Unfortunately the problem goes further when you compare the texts of the old and new Mass. I couldn’t believe how wonderful the old was when I first read it and felt cheated and surprised by the new.

I mean, fine, you want it in the vernacular, but why gut and modify the old text? It’s crazy!

I sure would like to quiz those responsible for this. It’s an act of literary vandalism, if nothing else.

I’ve said this before on here but in a way the advent of the O.F. might have saved the E.F. I recall reading that priests were taking liberties with it before Vat. II. Anyone who now wants to personalise the old rite would look like a pointless dabbler. With a TLM available on Sunday in every parish, in time, one hopes, people will be able to vote with their feet.