What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

[Lycorth]

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.

That runs through my mind, often. If people wanted the Mass in the Vernacular, then that is one thing - but why on earth was the Mass itself changed? Why on earth was a different Mass made up? Why was it mandated in place of the TLM?

The TLM can *easily *have been re-presented in the vernacular, and all of its rubrics and traditional practices left intact. Heck, room could have been made to substitute chant for the sort of traditional hymns currently used in most OF parishes without making changes to the Mass and its rubrics and traditions itself. The fact that such sweeping changes were made is beyond strange; I can only assume the Lord had some greater purpose in mind, or else I’d be forced to assume ill intent on the part of those who drew up the NO Mass.

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.

That is so very true. With the establishment of the NO Mass, the TLM was, in a very real way, protected from abuses. Tinkerers who wanted to fiddle with things had the NO Mass to monkey with; the TLM, when it was permitted again, really had appeal only to the traditionally minded. The TLM gives off connotations of traditionalism and permanency; people who wanted to toy with it would now be seen in a queer light instead of perhaps before the Council, when abuses were said to have happened.

Hopefully, God has a plan in mind. I pray He does.

 

[Onegin]

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.

This is worth repeating. I’ll bet a lot of people here on this forum enjoy travelling. It’s really, really hard to participate as a visitor to a OF parish in a non-English speaking country. If you’re in a large city it may be possible to find an English Mass but frequently this is not the case. Furthermore, even visiting other English speaking countries can be distracting and bothersome. For example, in the US, I sometimes had to say the responses under my breath because the parishioners kept turning around and staring at me (they heard the accent I think). This made it REALLY hard to concentrate in Mass and it was quite awkward indeed.

Contrast this with the TLM. You can literally go anywhere in the world with your Missal and the only part of the Mass that you will have difficulty understanding will be the homily and the announcements if any. Furthermore, your participation as a visitor probably won’t be as distracting to the other parishioners as it would be if you were fumbling about trying to speak the native language.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[Ockham]

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

The current state of the Church these past forty years.

 

[Mater]

Why do you want your numbers to grow?

 

[Lujack]

The current state of the Church these past forty years.

Regardless of whether that’s a true argument or not (and I would dispute it), that’s a very unwise argument to make. This person is trying to convince people, many of whom don’t remember the EF Mass as the only form. Telling them that the Mass they know is a bad thing that needs to be eradicated is a sure way to get them to dig in their heels.

 

[Lycorth]

This is worth repeating. I’ll bet a lot of people here on this forum enjoy travelling. It’s really, really hard to participate as a visitor to a OF parish in a non-English speaking country. If you’re in a large city it may be possible to find an English Mass but frequently this is not the case. Furthermore, even visiting other English speaking countries can be distracting and bothersome. For example, in the US, I sometimes had to say the responses under my breath because the parishioners kept turning around and staring at me (they heard the accent I think). This made it REALLY hard to concentrate in Mass and it was quite awkward indeed.

Contrast this with the TLM. You can literally go anywhere in the world with your Missal and the only part of the Mass that you will have difficulty understanding will be the homily and the announcements if any. Furthermore, your participation as a visitor probably won’t be as distracting to the other parishioners as it would be if you were fumbling about trying to speak the native language.

Just a few thoughts.

Quoted for truth. Every last word

 

[Ockham]

Telling them that the Mass they know is a bad thing that needs to be eradicated is a sure way to get them to dig in their heels.

You don’t have to position it like that; just state facts. The NO removed many prayers, rubics and reverence from the liturgy. The focus shifted from God to man. It is vulnerable to abuse. Catechesis all but disappeared from sermons. Participation in the Sacrament of Confession, devotions such as Benediction, First Friday and Saturday, has decreased to near extinction. As you worship so you believe. Most Catholics don’t know what being Catholic is anymore. If expressed with charity the facts speak for themselves. Catholics have a responsibility to instruct one another with the goal of Eternal Salvation.

 

[Lujack]

You don’t have to position it like that; just state facts. The NO removed many prayers, rubics and reverence from the liturgy. The focus shifted from God to man. It is vulnerable to abuse. Catechesis all but disappeared from sermons. Participation in the Sacrament of Confession, devotions such as Benediction, First Friday and Saturday, has decreased to near extinction. As you worship so you believe. Most Catholics don’t know what being Catholic is anymore. If expressed with charity the facts speak for themselves. Catholics have a responsibility to instruct one another with the goal of Eternal Salvation.

How are you not positioning like that? If you put this out there, you’re telling people that the only Mass that they’ve ever known is inferior. There are thirty-year olds out there who can’t even remember an EF Mass; you’re telling them that their entire life in the Church has been an inferior one. They’ll be hurt, and they’ll dig their heels in. Even those who wouldn’t be opposed to adding the Mass but like the OF Mass that they know will be upset, and rightly so. After all, you’re attacking on things that have nothing to do with adding an EF Mass-if you lay out that case, you’ve insulted the pastor’s sermons and told the congregation they don’t know what it means to be Catholic. Why do that?

That would cause me to dig my heels in, and I already think every parish should work on adding at least one Mass in the extraordinary form.

When you make this argument, you are an ambassador. You need to be diplomatic, and that means not challenging the form of the Mass that the majority of the congregation will have known. It certainly means not calling them bad Catholics. It certainly means not insulting the pastor. And the Extraordinary Form is far from a magic bullet for any of those problems, anyway; just attending an EF Mass doesn’t mean you’ll go to confession, and it doesn’t mean you’ll hear a catechetical sermon. What you have to understand is that the EF is in a bubble right now; the pastors who celebrate it did extra work to get to that point, and the people who attend it are looking for it, so of course their level of devotion will be very high. It wasn’t the Ordinary Form that caused those problems; in the United States, it was the suburbs and the end of the parish as the center of community life. Not even Vatican II caused those trends; it was starting in the late 1950’s (take a look at suburban churches in those days and you’ll see the precursors of everything that followed, specifically those churches in the white-flight suburbs that were just starting to spring up).

Why make these harsh arguments when you can make a positive one, one that highlights the good points about the EF without raising the hackles of those who attend the OF?

 

[malphono]

Why make these harsh arguments when you can make a positive one, one that highlights the good points about the EF without raising the hackles of those who attend the OF?

That’s not a bad point. Always better to make a positive argument when possible.

It’s interesting to consider the aftermath of Trent when only a handful of Western Rites were preserved (those in continuous use for 200+ years) while the various “sub-usages” (for lack of a better term off-hand) that had sprung-up in the interim in various places were suppressed. There were undoubtedly people who had “hurt feelings” when the only usage they knew first-hand was replaced by the Roman usage. Of course Trent was addressing the spread of heresy (aka Protestantism, in its various and sundry forms) and was trying to ensure orthodoxy because of it. The current situation is, of course, quite a bit different, and it seems to me futile at best to make that argument now. For maximum effect, IMO the EF needs to be, as you say, presented positively rather than negatively.

 

[Ockham]

How are you not positioning like that? If you put this out there, you’re telling people that the only Mass that they’ve ever known is inferior. There are thirty-year olds out there who can’t even remember an EF Mass; you’re telling them that their entire life in the Church has been an inferior one. They’ll be hurt, and they’ll dig their heels in.

You are making a lot of judgements, assumptions and conclusions which is ironic considering your accusations. How you phrase, position, and explain something to someone plays a significant role in their perception of your message. I’m not saying to get in anyone’s face, belittle them. Just point out the facts. There is a direct correlation between the takeover of the Novus Ordo and the decline in reverence, practice and belief. I am one of those Catholics who grew up in the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ so I hold no moral superiority over anyone new to the old.

 

[Robertwilliam]

I would contact the Traditional Mass Society at Saint Annes Church in San Diego. This group of remarkable people kept the Traditional Mass alive and growing for many years. For a long time the Masses were held in a cemetary mauseleum chapel. The crowds got so big that there was not enough room in the Chapel and the people spilled out into the passageways amongst the tombs. A very unique experience. many people came just for the experience of that alone. Quite a few of them stayed and became regulars. We were lucky in that we had a Bishop who supported us and even celebrated some Masses there. Eventually, as the result of years and years of Rosaries requesting that we be given our own Church, we got not only a Church, but a fully traditional Parish.

Talk with the Society. They can give you very very good advice.

I used to attend Holy Cross every Sunday.

 

[Timothysis]

There is a direct correlation between the takeover of the Novus Ordo and the decline in reverence, practice and belief.

This is patently untrue. Lujack is absolutely correct when he says that the trends to less reverence and practice of the faith began at least in the 1950s. The 1960’s was the era when the river of secular belief and lifestyles overflowed its banks and flooded everything. To try and blame the "decline in reverence, practice and belief" on the introduction of the Pauline missal is unfounded.

Perhaps you can find the "direct correlation" proving that the decrease in attendance in protestant churches post Vatican II was to blame on the Pauline mass, too…

 

[Ockham]

I do not dispute lowering reverence trends in the pre-V2 years. We agree that when the Novus Ordo was created the horses left the barn. Lex orandi, lex credendi supports my argument. The NO is a less reverent liturgical form, that’s a fact. As a result, Catholics who don’t know better practice a less reverent life. My argument to promote the TLM is based on critically examining where we are today comnpared to our past. Cardinal Mahony’s Congress Masses show us where we could be without adhering to our traditions.

 

[Lujack]

You are making a lot of judgements, assumptions and conclusions which is ironic considering your accusations. How you phrase, position, and explain something to someone plays a significant role in their perception of your message. I’m not saying to get in anyone’s face, belittle them. Just point out the facts. There is a direct correlation between the takeover of the Novus Ordo and the decline in reverence, practice and belief. I am one of those Catholics who grew up in the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ so I hold no moral superiority over anyone new to the old.

1. I don’t think that’s true. I believe you’re wrong about that, so I don’t think its a good argument to make.
2. You can’t make that argument positively. It can’t be done; no matter how nicely you do it, you’re going to offend people. Its upsetting me, and I’m on the side of adding an EF Mass to all parishes wholeheartedly; how is someone leery of the idea, the someone that you need to convince, going to react? It isn’t even a realistic goal to take four OF Masses and put up four EF Masses in their place; even with the EF added, the majority of parishioners, at least at first, will still be attending an Ordinary Form Mass. Why go after them like that? Why go after the priest, who will still likely be saying most Masses in the Ordinary Form?

I know that you’re saying to do it charitably, but how can you tell someone that the only Mass they know is a failure in a nice way? You can’t, unless you’re a genius. And even then it would be hard. But why go down that route? You don’t need it to make your case.

 

[Ockham]

1. You can’t make that argument positively. It can’t be done; no matter how nicely you do it, you’re going to offend people. Its upsetting me, and I’m on the side of adding an EF Mass to all parishes wholeheartedly; how is someone leery of the idea, the someone that you need to convince, going to react?

Well here’s the thing. You are wrong. In fact I have made this argument positively and no, people were not offended. I guess that settles that. As for the rest…where do you get the idea I’m going after priests or demanding all the OFs be replaced with EFs? You are reacting irrationally. When you can control your emotions I’ll be delighted to continue with you.

 

[Timothysis]

The NO is a less reverent liturgical form, that’s a fact.

Oh, ok. And which “fact” book is that from , exactly?

 

[otjm]

This is worth repeating. I’ll bet a lot of people here on this forum enjoy travelling. It’s really, really hard to participate as a visitor to a OF parish in a non-English speaking country.

I have attended Masses in all Latin ( I was an altar boy long before Vatican 2 was dreamed of), English, Spanish and Vietnamese. It really is no harder to follow Mass in Vietnamese (of which I don’t catch one word) than it is to follow Mass in Latin; you use the same material - a missal. In each case of a language other than my own, I had an English missal. In the OF, it is not all that hard to follow the priest saying the Mass in Vietnamese, as the same actions follow in that language as do in all English; when the first reader gets up, I know enough to read the OT reading; I can tell when the Psalm is recited or sung; I know when the second reading occurs, the Gospel, the Creed, the Offeratory… It is simply an urban myth that one has to have the Mass in a universal language (Latin) to be able to follow it elsewhere. Granted that there are numerous words in English that ultimately come from Latin and precious few from Vietnamese; but the premise that one cannot follow along is hooey.

That is not to say that there is no value in having Latin as a universal language, and I make no comment for or aginst it. It is simply that because people keep repeating it that the idea that one cannot follow along gains any traction.

Contrast this with the TLM. You can literally go anywhere in the world with your Missal and the only part of the Mass that you will have difficulty understanding will be the homily and the announcements if any. Furthermore, your participation as a visitor probably won’t be as distracting to the other parishioners as it would be if you were fumbling about trying to speak the native language.

Just a few thoughts.

It doesn’t matter if the Mass is the OF in Latin or the EF; they are both in Latin. Most people simply do not speak Latin or read Latin. The arguement about Latin goes on and on; the value of it to the Roman rite is the same value as Arabic and Aramaic to the Maronite rite, as it goes back to the early Church. The format, whether it is the EF or the OF remains the same no matter what language it may be celebrated in, and anyone who has been to Mass in either format enough to know where they are, will know where they are in any language.

Just a few more thoughts. I am neither intending to promote nor to object to Latin; only to the premise that if it is in a different language than Latin or our native tongue, that it is difficult to follow along. It isn’t.

 

[otjm]

I grew up in the EF, having positions as altar server in the Low and High Mass (with apologies to malphono, I have never gotten the terms correct - perhaps because we used Low, High and Solemn High all the time and not the correct terms) and candle bearer, altar server, thurifer, and Master of Ceremonies at Solemn High Mass.

Last night I attended the Chrism Mass at our cathedral in Portland, along with several people from my parish who will be joining the Church this Saturday.

I turned to one of them after the Mass and said, casually, “What do you think of it?”; her response (she is in her mid 20’s) was “That was AWESOME!”. It was the OF, with a choir of 30 or 40 people who can sing better on their worst days than I on my best. The Archbishop has a splendid tenor voice and sung various parts of the Mass.

To anyone who says the OF cannot be as reverent as the EF, I say you are full of yourself, and not honest enought to admit your prejudices.

I do not object to anyone’s prejudices between their preference overall of the OF or the EF. I appreciate both. I also have the privilege of being in a parish that does not take liberties with the OF. Yes, the OF rubrics are not as complex as the EF’s. Yes, prayers were removed. But reverence is as reverence does; I have seen sloppy OF Masses and sloppy EF Masses, more of the former than the latter. But that has far, far more to do with the attitude of the priest than it does to the rubrics or the prayers.

But to answer the OP: one does not need any “arguments” at all, in any way, shape or form. Within the OF in my parish, there are those who prefer a quiet OF Mass; others prefer a vary sparse choir and hymns; others prefer a larger choir that sings with far more enthusiasm (and a bit more musical ability). And just so, some will prefer to attend an EF sung by a choir; others might prefer what we called a Low Mass, and it is entriely possible many will not want to attend regularly a Mass said in Latin.

But getting into anything that even remotely looks like “mine is better than yours” is going to turn a lot of people off, and very quickly. And failing to understand that the average person in the pew has little or no knowledge of rubrics and cannot be presumed to prefer one over the other is setting oneself up for failure. If the Mass is said in the EF at a time where the majority of people can get there without rearranging their schedule seriously (in other words, look for the OF with the largest attendance) that will give the greatest number of people a chance to attend one.

And don’t presume to simply make the OF go away at that time and replace it automatically with the EF, unless you want people to over-react negatively. People are creatures of habit, and habit runs deeper than conscious thought.

Have the Mass available once at the peak time. Then have it again, a month or 6 weeks later. It won’t take long, maybe three or 4 times, and the issue will sort itself out; if the second , 3rd or 4th time there is a significant drop off of attendance, then people will have voted with their feet. If attendance stays relatively the same, then one can expect to expand the number of times a month it will be offered.

All of this presumes that one has a priest available to say the EF, and whatever else is necessary, of that can be easily obtained on loan. None of it is rocket science.

And if attendance drops off or there is a very negative reaction, then move the EF to a different timeslot that is not as busy.

And the bottom rule should be: make no comparisons to the OF. People, while not liturgically trained in rubrics and prayers, can figure it out without you having to point it all out; they really are not stupid. Tell positively what the various rubrics and prayers do/show/state, where they came from (if you actually know), and then leave the rest alone.

Having been in seminary when Vatican 2 ended, and not a whole lot later asking my parents, relatives and others of their generation what they thought of the changes in the Mass, the vast majority indicated that the best thing they saw was the change to the vernacular. I have said it elsewhere, and I will repeat it: the vernacular has far, far more power than people want to give credit. Failing to learn that lesson will cause those who favor the EF untold frustration over trying to implement the EF. That does not mean that there are not more people wanting the EF (particularly after they have actually been to one or more) than meets the eye. But if anyone thinks that the EF, if introduced will take over to wild acclaim, they are not paying attention. Even the Pope in his letter accompanying SP indicated he did not think it would be widespread. It definitely has a place. It definitely should be made available. Those who love it should have it available, but their enthusiasm some times seems to fly in the face or reality.

 

[Lujack]

Well here’s the thing. You are wrong. In fact I have made this argument positively and no, people were not offended. I guess that settles that. As for the rest…where do you get the idea I’m going after priests or demanding all the OFs be replaced with EFs? You are reacting irrationally. When you can control your emotions I’ll be delighted to continue with you.

First of all, I’m reacting perfectly rationally, and I can control my emotions perfectly well. I don’t particularly care for the way that you’re condescending to me here, but that’s not crippling.

Here’s why I get the idea that you’re going after priests. In order to lay out the case you just said, you have to go up there and say that there’s no catechesis in the homilies at the parish, and that the EF will fix it. First of all, I don’t see why it would; I’d argue that one of the OF’s strengths is that it provides more opportunity for that because it has a wider cycle of readings, but more importantly, someone who doesn’t catechize in their sermons won’t suddenly start doing so because they start saying the Mass in Latin, ad orientatem, and undertake a different reading cycle. That’s a matter of the priest, not the Mass, and its a perfect example of how many of the changes that took place in the Church were developing independently of Vatican II and the Pauline Missal.

Secondly, your argument is not that the EF has a place in the parish, its that the OF is a bad Mass, responsible for much ill (something I disagree with you on, but that’s a different matter). Now, if you believe what you’re saying here, that the Ordinary Form of the Mass itself is responsible for the problems of the Church, the only logical next step for you to advocate is for the OF to be replaced entirely with the EF. That’s not an argument you need to make, and it isn’t a topic that you need to take on.

 

[Timothysis]

To anyone who says the OF cannot be as reverent as the EF, I say you are full of yourself, and not honest enought to admit your prejudices.

Bravo, sir. That was an excellent post.