What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

[jadler]

I am new to TLM. I started researching the history of the Mass as a way to prepare for teaching a CCD class. It seems that my high schoolers who attended eight years of “Catholic” elementary school did not understand the Mass as being a sacrifice…at all. When reading a collection of commentary on the Mass by saints and doctors of the Church, I was very confused. I also read a very good book called “How Christ Said the First Mass”. But, I was confused by their commentary because they would talk about the symbolism of certain rubrics or tell the origin of certain prayers, and I had no idea what they were talking about. I finally realized that they were not talking about the same thing I was thinking of. Mass to them was something a bit different than what I had experienced ( I was born in 1970). So, I began to study about the “old rite” of Mass. When I read the prayers of the TLM, I literally cried. I am sorry, “verbose” is inaccurate in describing the difference of the prayers.
I couldn’t understand why the switch from TLM to NO would ever be made. I have heard numerous stories of people not participating in the old rite when it was prevalent, i.e. saying rosaries during Mass. Men who served at the TLM told me they didn’t have a clue what the responses meant, but they were simply pronouncing syllables in order. (I personally point the finger at the evolution of education, read Steve Kellmeyer’s “Designed To Fail”) All of this anecdotal information makes me wonder if God took the TLM from man as a chastisement similar to the sacking of Solomon’s temple. I personally hope FSSP, Una Voce, and Ecclesia Dei prove to be our modern day Judas Maccabeus. Maybe the last forty years will prove to be a cleansing?!
Some things I have found that will hinder the proliferation of TLM are certain bias. Many of those who lived through the Vatican II, whom I have spoken with, think that NO is simply TLM said in vernacular. There are many who think TLM is an invalid rite and those who attend are heretical or schismatic. I also live in a diocese which has only one “TLM” per month without a properly trained priest accompanied by the most wretched attempt at chant anyone has ever heard. I honestly think they only have this “TLM” to keep anyone from asking for more.
I travel three hours once or twice a month to experience “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven” made possible by the Institute of Christ the King. My wife and kids do not get anything out of it. They do not follow along with the Missal. They do not care anything about the prayers being offered. They think the music is pretty, but you just can’t beat a 30 minute NO back home to fulfill your Sunday obligation.
As my 17 year old daughter put it, “Dad, the only people that could possibly stand Latin Mass are the ones who actually want to be saints.”

 

[tradboy]

The International Society of Scholastics have posted a sample segment of the lecture “The Natural Superiority of Traditional Worship” societyofscholastics.org/blogus/blog1.php/2010/03/31/sample-of-the-natural-superiority-of-tra

I am about half-way through the whole lecture for a second time. Very, very interesting. It isn’t the same old “My mass is better than yours” but a careful philosophical examination of man’s nature and what that God-given nature means for worship. It also isn’t just smply TLM vs NO but argues for all forms of more traditional worship so it applies to the reform of the reform as well.

As the lecturer makes clear this is just a start but it certainly answered a lot of my questions and gave me a lot to think about.

Every Catholic should listen to it and then we can perhaps get beyond some of the animosity we see whenever these issues come up.

I agree with the posters who say that it is unwise to attack the NO/OF. I do think that it is very important that we have an objective basis for explaining the TLM to people.

We just can’t rely on exposing people to the mass or hoping that people will share our aesthetic sense or are sickened by abuse.

We have to appeal to what every person has in common (we hope) i.e reason

 

[Ockham]

That’s not an argument you need to make, and it isn’t a topic that you need to take on.

Condescending? You accuse me of it and then go on to tell me which arguments and topics I can discuss?

The EF is a more reverent and richer in Catholicism than the Novus Ordo. People can say they prefer the NO but to suggest the two forms are equal is absurd. Many people prefer Protestant forms of worship too.

The Novus Ordo itself didn’t lead to a lack of catechesis but the two went hand in hand through the ‘spirit if Vatican II’ tornado.

 

[Ockham]

I 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.

A Novus Ordo can be said reverently. However, all things done with equal reverence and by the book, the NO is not as reverent as the TLM. To suggest othewise is clouded in prejudice or ignorance.

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.

I don’t think anyone believes the damage done to our Church is going to be corrected overnight. It will take generations and much guidance from the Holy Spirit to fix things. It is easier to dumb down than smarten up.

 

[Layman]

The N.O. could be said reverently, as envisaged by the Second Vatican Council. There’s one Church in Britain where it’s said ad-orientem and in Latin, that I know of.

I think the fact that the Mass was changed at all opened the floodgates to local experimentation. Now you’re not sure what you’re going to get if you go to a new church.

The revolution hasn’t invigorated the Church. Worse, **as a result of liberalisation a generation has grown up which knows nothing about tradition or even the basics of Catholicism. **

So there could be a TLM two miles away they’ll not hear about it or if they hear about it, they’ll not know what it means. If they hear about it and go to it, they won’t understand it.

And bishops wonder why they’re not getting vocations. After being vetted by lay-people, then six years in a seminary learning the local variety of the faith, then becoming an underpaid social worker, at the mercy of his bishop, who can consecrate hosts at a communal meal Mass for distribution by the laity, why would any man with prospects bother? It just doesn’t have the glamour, respect or power.

Re-introducing the TLM is just a start. We have a long way to go.

 

[Lujack]

Condescending? You accuse me of it and then go on to tell me which arguments and topics I can discuss?

There’s a different between saying “can” and “need”. Of course you can say whatever you want, but I’m saying that this isn’t an argument that you need to make.

The EF is a more reverent and richer in Catholicism than the Novus Ordo. People can say they prefer the NO but to suggest the two forms are equal is absurd. Many people prefer Protestant forms of worship too.

The Pope certainly seems willing to suggest they are equal; if they weren’t equal, if the OF was so far inferior to the EF that preferring it is like preferring a Protestant form of worship, why has he so clearly said that they both have a place in the Church?

The Novus Ordo itself didn’t lead to a lack of catechesis but the two went hand in hand through the ‘spirit if Vatican II’ tornado.

So if the OF didn’t lead to the lack of catechesis, why mention that when you’re trying to get an EF Mass added? Why even bring that up? And like I’ve argued earlier in this thread, accusing the Spirit of Vatican II and the Ordinary Form is missing the fact that these things were starting to happen in the United States during the late 1950’s. You had priests already saying Mass facing people, people already receiving communion on the hand, but most telling of all, you had the style of architecture changing. The issue was that the parish was ceasing to serve as the center of community life, and the population of the Church was suburbanizing; these things started fastest in the newly-emerging suburbs that people were moving to (obviously, this applies only to the United States).

 

[Ockham]

So if the OF didn’t lead to the lack of catechesis, why mention that when you’re trying to get an EF Mass added? Why even bring that up?

I bring it up because they are related, they go together in the ‘spirit of Vatican II’. Rebellion may very well have started prior to V2 and it should have been corrected immediately. Acquiescence is never the answer. The Truth doesn’t change, therefore neither should our worship of it.

This subject is important because souls are at risk. How many Catholics receive the Blessed Sacrament in a state of grace these days? How many are using contraception? How many believe in the Real Presence? We don’t need priests to make us feel all warm and fuzzy - we need them to help keep us from the fires of Hell.

The EF needs to be added to increase the chances of getting to heaven; and God deserves our best efforts at worshipping Him. It’s a different form, not just another novel variation of the NO like a jazz, youth, or folk mass.

Death, Judgement, Heaven, Hell.

Lex Orandi, lex credendi.

 

[Timothysis]

A Novus Ordo can be said reverently. However, all things done with equal reverence and by the book, the NO is not as reverent as the TLM. To suggest othewise is clouded in prejudice or ignorance.

The only ignorance here is this very statement. How can something done with “equal reverence” as another be “not as reverent?”

 

[Timothysis]

People can say they prefer the NO but to suggest the two forms are equal is absurd.

Then take it up with Pope Benedict, because he is the one who said that both the EF and the OF are two expressions of the same rite. Are you suggesting that Pope Benedict is “absurd?”

 

[mick321]

Although some solid arguments have been expressed, most of you are missing the obvious.

Timothysis and OTJM are not likely to attend the TLM under any circumstance.

Prove me wrong gentlemen.

I dare you.

 

[Ockham]

The only ignorance here is this very statement. How can something done with “equal reverence” as another be “not as reverent?”

My mistake. I meant to say, “all things considered equal” meaning compare both forms equally said as reverently as both allow. Does that clarify?

The Pope is making incremental improvements to the NO while taking the shackles off the TLM. There would be too much hysteria if he imposed the changes the way the modernists inflicted the "spirit of Vatican II’ upon us.

If both forms were equal then why have two? Is the EF just another adjective in front of the word Mass?

 

[Timothysis]

Although some solid arguments have been expressed, most of you are missing the obvious.

Timothysis and OTJM are not likely to attend the TLM under any circumstance.

Prove me wrong gentlemen.

I dare you.

Been there, done that. You are wrong. Are you big enough to admit it?

 

[Lujack]

I bring it up because they are related, they go together in the ‘spirit of Vatican II’. Rebellion may very well have started prior to V2 and it should have been corrected immediately. Acquiescence is never the answer. The Truth doesn’t change, therefore neither should our worship of it.

But now you’re making assumptions about our hypothetical parish. You’re assuming that this parish is in rebellion, and you’re trying to go after that, as well. Why?

And the worship of the Truth did and has changed over the years. There’s nothing wrong with that; when Pope Pius IX promoted frequent communion, he was changing something in the Church and its worship of the truth. When Pius XI promulgated the Feast of Christ the King, same thing.

This subject is important because souls are at risk. How many Catholics receive the Blessed Sacrament in a state of grace these days? How many are using contraception? How many believe in the Real Presence? We don’t need priests to make us feel all warm and fuzzy - we need them to help keep us from the fires of Hell.

The EF needs to be added to increase the chances of getting to heaven; and God deserves our best efforts at worshipping Him. It’s a different form, not just another novel variation of the NO like a jazz, youth, or folk mass.

Death, Judgement, Heaven, Hell.

Lex Orandi, lex credendi.

So now what does this have to do with the OF Mass? People who receive when not in a state of grace are just as likely to kneel at the altar rail; if they don’t believe in the real presence, the priest with his back to the congregation won’t change that; if they use contraception, it won’t suddenly stop because of the prayers at the foot of the altar.

 

[Lujack]

If both forms were equal then why have two? Is the EF just another adjective in front of the word Mass?

If the Divine Liturgy of the Byzantine Church and the Latin Rite are equal, why have two? Why have the Dominican Rite? Why have Baroque architecture and Gothic architecture?

 

[Ockham]

My comments are directed at the Roman rite although in principle it would be nice if there was only one rite withing the Church.

I’m sure most people who prefer the EF do so for very good reasons. It’s not like a matter of catchier tunes, funnier homilies, prettier banners or any other frivolous reason. It comes down to a more reverent form of worship. That doesn’t have to be insulting, but it remains none the less a fact. If a forum absent of disagreement and debate is what you prefer then I suggest the Liturgy and Sacraments.

 

[Lujack]

My comments are directed at the Roman rite although in principle it would be nice if there was only one rite withing the Church.

Why is that so? Isn’t the wide variety of rites and churches and styles of architecture proof of the depth and richness of the Catholic faith?

I’m sure most people who prefer the EF do so for very good reasons. It’s not like a matter of catchier tunes, funnier homilies, prettier banners or any other frivolous reason. It comes down to a more reverent form of worship. That doesn’t have to be insulting, but it remains none the less a fact.

I’m sure most people who prefer the OF do so for very good reasons, too. And it doesn’t remain a fact that its a more reverent form of worship just because you’ve declared it so. I can declare that St. Patrick’s Cathedral is the nicest church in the United States; that doesn’t make it a fact. The Pope clearly holds to the position that the EF and the OF belong on equal footing in the Latin Rite.

Now, there is certainly some subjective elements, and it is not wrong for you to find the EF preferable. But it is not correct for you, on your own authority, to declare one form of the Latin Rite superior to the other. And that is a fact.

If a forum absent of disagreement and debate is what you prefer then I suggest the Liturgy and Sacraments.

If you think there’s no debate in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, you’re crazy.

 

[Ockham]

Now, there is certainly some subjective elements, and it is not wrong for you to find the EF preferable. But it is not correct for you, on your own authority, to declare one form of the Latin Rite superior to the other. And that is a fact.

If you think there’s no debate in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, you’re crazy.

The EF is a more reverent form of worship than the OF. I’m not going to deny the obvious just because you disagree. Let’s agree to disagree and move on.

 

[malphono]

… in principle it would be nice if there was only one rite withing the Church.

No, it would not.

I’m what might be called a “liturgical purist” and very much appreciate the intrinsic value of the EF. That said, “one rite” would mean the loss of of a great treasure of liturgy and spirituality, both Eastern and Western, all of which are as ancient and venerable in their own right, as the Roman. And perhaps more so. Such a thing would shake the Church to its very foundations.

And, BTW, saying “one rite” is a two-edged sword: it’s clearly your assumption that the “one rite” would be the Roman, because of size. Well, size isn’t everything, and I suspect the tone would change if that “one rite” ended-up to be, for example, Byzantine.

 

[mick321]

Been there, done that. You are wrong. Are you big enough to admit it?

Absolutely.

Merely present evidence [or solemnly affirm] that since 0715 PDT today, you have assisted the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Liturgy - anywhere in the world - I will admit that I was wrong.

Furthermore, if you are big enough to assist the EF at Our Lady of Sorrows in Baton Rouge - during Easter Tritium - I will also thank you profusely for opening your heart and mind to our Holy Faith.

Your move, Sport.

 

[otjm]

Although some solid arguments have been expressed, most of you are missing the obvious.

Timothysis and OTJM are not likely to attend the TLM under any circumstance.

Prove me wrong gentlemen.

I dare you.

I would suspect that I have attended more of the EF Masses in a year than you have in a life time. Further, I have made no comments anywhere that indicate any preferance whatsoever. You are simply reaching; I find that happening fairly regularly when people are confronted with reality as opposed to their pipe dreams.

I grew up on the EF. I find nothing to disparage about it and would wish that all who want to attend would have the privilege and ability to do so. It is simply not available in the area I live and there seems little interest in getting it established.

I am privileged to live where the OF is said with reverence. The fact that I address others’ comments on their presumption that it is not reverent has nothing to do with what form I would prefer to attend; my preferences are irrelevant to that issue.

Niced try, but totally lacking in prescience.