What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

[stevusmagnus]

Aside: Would I be correct in saying this, though: there hasn’t been an English Mass. There have been translations of a Latin Mass…that is, even for the OF, the definitive version is in Latin, not a vernacular language. For the Roman rite, anyway, Latin is the mother of all vernaculars.

There are two separate and almost distinct Masses in the OF.

There is the Latin as said by the Pope, in a beautiful basilica, with incense and chant, male only altar servers etc.

Then there is the banal ICEL translation, completely inaccurate in places. For instance any first year Latin student knows pro multis = for many and not for all; then “mysterium fidei” in the Latin is supposed to be looking back on the consecration that just took place. The Eucharist IS the mystery of our faith. ICEL translates “let us proclaim the mystery of faith” as if the mystery had not yet occurred and then recites "Christ has died, Christ is Risen. Christ will come again. This is NOT the mystery of our faith!

Then almost all the vernacular liturgies on the diocesan level allow for the innovation of girl altar boys and the indult to receive communion in the hand. Also guitars of all sorts, rock instruments, drums, etc and all sorts of secular music are allowed. The congregation typically holds hands during the Our Father which is illicit, unworthy glass vessels are used to hold the precious blood and sacred hosts, etc. etc.

As a result, in practice, there are really three Masses. The Mass of Paul VI, the “ICEL” Mass, and the Mass of Pius V.

 

[Lujack]

You know I keep hearing this. SInce antiquarianism is in general the love of anything old, it is scarcely sinful. If so, shopping for antiques would be sinful. I keep wanting to find what this means, but am having a hard time finding source documents (not traditional site opinions).

As I understand it, antiquarianism is the belief that old things are good because they are old, and that something is better than something else because it is older than something else.

 

[EasterJoy]

There are two separate and almost distinct Masses in the OF.

There is the Latin as said by the Pope, in a beautiful basilica, with incense and chant, male only altar servers etc.

Then there is the banal ICEL translation, completely inaccurate in places. For instance any first year Latin student knows pro multis = for many and not for all; then “mysterium fidei” in the Latin is supposed to be looking back on the consecration that just took place. The Eucharist IS the mystery of our faith. ICEL translates “let us proclaim the mystery of faith” as if the mystery had not yet occurred and then recites "Christ has died, Christ is Risen. Christ will come again. This is NOT the mystery of our faith!

Then almost all the vernacular liturgies on the diocesan level allow for the innovation of girl altar boys and the indult to receive communion in the hand. Also guitars of all sorts, rock instruments, drums, etc and all sorts of secular music are allowed. The congregation typically holds hands during the Our Father which is illicit, unworthy glass vessels are used to hold the precious blood and sacred hosts, etc. etc.

As a result, in practice, there are really three Masses. The Mass of Paul VI, the “ICEL” Mass, and the Mass of Pius V.

OK, we are getting on the same page now.

When I say “OF”, I mean the definitive version of the Mass of Paul VI. Even the Bible suffers in translation, but if the limitations of the translation are understood, that can be lived with for the sake of hearing the Gospel in one’s own tongue. It is not as if many in the laity ever knew Latin so fluently that most didn’t need recourse to a vernacular translation, even in the days when the Mass of Pius V was all there was. I wouldn’t consider improvements in translation of the Mass of Paul VI to be a new Mass, even though many would.

IMHO, if the Mass of Pius V becomes more widely known, it can be well-hoped that a translation that better captures the Mass of Paul VI will replace the less satisfactory ones. That is what I mean by “the OF is not going away” but that wider contact of the faithful with the EF could have a good effect on the OF. I don’t mean the snare drums and that sort of thing are here to stay. Let’s hope not. They have their place; just not at Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

As a result, in practice, there are really three Masses. The Mass of Paul VI, the “ICEL” Mass, and the Mass of Pius V.

Good point. There definitely would have been fewer problems without the ICEL. However, the Latin Mass of Paul VI, the real Novus Ordo, would have been a tough sell without the vernacular. So it was done hastily and most didn’t care how it was translated and whether it was accurate or not. To this day, relatively few have ever attended a Latin Novus Ordo, on which their vernacular is supposed to be based. And it seems as if they have no interest either. Pity because it has a certain beauty to it and will probably stick around longer than their own vernacular.

 

[otjm]

What does this tell you?

that the Lutherans found value in how we worship.

If the Lutherans copied from the Tridentine Missal they’d be Catholic.

No,they would still be Lutherans. Trust me. There are more issues than the form of the Mass.

 

[otjm]

Then why are they allowed?

Because not every last thing about the Mass is in the missal.

 

[otjm]

There are two separate and almost distinct Masses in the OF.

There is the Latin as said by the Pope, in a beautiful basilica, with incense and chant, male only altar servers etc.

Then there is the banal ICEL translation, completely inaccurate in places. For instance any first year Latin student knows pro multis = for many and not for all; then “mysterium fidei” in the Latin is supposed to be looking back on the consecration that just took place. The Eucharist IS the mystery of our faith. ICEL translates “let us proclaim the mystery of faith” as if the mystery had not yet occurred and then recites "Christ has died, Christ is Risen. Christ will come again. This is NOT the mystery of our faith!

It most certainly is the mystery of our Faith. Without the Resurrection, all we would have is a guru, someone who had a lot of nice sayings who got himself whacked by the authorities, died and was never heard from again. The Resurrection is the key point to the whole story; it makes Christ’s death into something more than just a criminal who got sideways witht he powers that be. It makes the story of the Immaculate Conception make sense; the story of the Incarnation make sense; it makes the Eucharist make sense; it makes His death make sense. The that Resurrection was and still is a mystery is shown amply in the Resurrection stories. How mahny other people throughout the history of the workd have risen gloriously from the dead - before then or since? Nada. Zip. No one. He [promised He would rise on the third day. No Resurrection, and He is just another story teller. A good one, but nothing more. Go read the Resurrection stories. How many people did not recognize Him (and they had spent three years withHim, dy in and day out), and if it was the Christ, why did they not immediately recognize Him? His resurrected body is a mystery, just as great as the mystery of the Eucharist, and just as great as the mystery of the Incarnation.

The Eucharist is the sum and summit of our worship and our Mass, but it is no less a mystery than the others.

The congregation typically holds hands during the Our Father which is illicit, People have been holding hands during the Our Father for forty years. In Forty years the GIRM has been re-written twice, RS has come out, as well as numerous other documents. Rome has known about the issue all that time and has seen fit to not address the issue, because it is not illicit. There is no rule for the posture of hands during the Mass, and it is no more illicit than holding your hands palms together, fingers interlaced, or palms together, fingers pointing up. Niether of those hand positions are mentioned anywhere whatsoever in the rubrics. If holding hands is illicit, so are the others.

 

[Ockham]

that the Lutherans found value in how we worship.

No,they would still be Lutherans. Trust me. There are more issues than the form of the Mass.

It tells me the Novus Ordo is an ecumenical gesture as a ‘simplified’ liturgy. Unfortunately, Lutherans and others haven’t been crossing the Tiber as a result. In fact the only significant group of Protestants to even consider coming home are the Traditional Anglicans. How many Catholic souls have been lost in the interm?

 

[Timothysis]

What does this tell you?

That the Lutherans are so theologically weak minded that they can take something that is totally and distinctly Catholic and use it as their own without even comprehending the theology behind it. They like the sound of the words without the intellectual ability to understand the deep meanings behind them, much like people who quote Shakespeare because it sounds high brow, yet have never read a total work of his.

If the Lutherans copied from the Tridentine Missal they’d be Catholic.

Nice attempt at avoiding the question so I will ask again; if the Lutherans copied the Tridentine Missal for their service books, would you have a problem with “it.”

They’ve already copied a Catholic missal and yet are still not Catholic. Your logic is flawed.

 

[Timothysis]

Then why are they allowed?

You need to distinguish what is in the missal and the disciplines allowed or not allowed in the celebration of the liturgy. The missal does not dictate the way communion is received or the sex of the altar server.

 

[Timothysis]

In 1969, Max Thurian, (left in photo) an important protestant theologian, who helped found the ecumenical Taizé community in France, made this statement: “It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as Catholics.”

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F006_Frere-Roger-Max_Thurian.jpg

I will ask this once again; PLEASE SHOW ME AN EXAMPLE OF ANYTHING PROTESTANT IN THE MISSAL OF POPE PAUL VI.

Just because the confused theology of a protestant allows the use of liturgical books that are not part of their faith does not mean that there is anything inherently flawed in the liturgy. By your logic, the Bible itself is questionable since so many atrocities have been committed throughout the centuries using the Bible as a source of authority.

 

[Timothysis]

It tells me the Novus Ordo is an ecumenical gesture as a ‘simplified’ liturgy. Unfortunately, Lutherans and others haven’t been crossing the Tiber as a result. In fact the only significant group of Protestants to even consider coming home are the Traditional Anglicans. How many Catholic souls have been lost in the interm?

As has been mentioned numerous times before, Catholics did not leave the Church because of the change in liturgy (and, apparently, neither did the change in the liturgy bring in the wayward protestants; perhaps there is some other underlying element?); the continuance of the latin Mass would have seen the same loss of souls.

 

[stevusmagnus]

As has been mentioned numerous times before, Catholics did not leave the Church because of the change in liturgy (and, apparently, neither did the change in the liturgy bring in the wayward protestants; perhaps there is some other underlying element?); the continuance of the latin Mass would have seen the same loss of souls.

You mentioned it many times, but your claim is wholly unsupported by the statistical data. If things are as you say we’d expect to see a leveling of Mass attendance immediately before and after the liturgical changes. Instead sharp declines began immediately after VCII when the changes began to be implemented in 1965. Under the Old Rite we had 75% Mass attendance. We now have about 25%.

The change in the liturgy did not bring back Protestants. In that you are right. There were, ironically, far more conversions before the reforms. The reason is that the Protestants can say the NO in their own churches, and the Conciliar Church insists there is no pressing need for them to convert to be saved, so why convert?

 

[EasterJoy]

As has been mentioned numerous times before, Catholics did not leave the Church because of the change in liturgy (and, apparently, neither did the change in the liturgy bring in the wayward protestants; perhaps there is some other underlying element?); the continuance of the latin Mass would have seen the same loss of souls.

Excepting the fact that the Church in Europe was in full hemorrhage before Vatican II was convened, that cannot be known. It is true that there was a real problem to be addressed. What other results a difference in approach would have brought, who can know?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

No. The Lutherans revised their service in the late 1970s. The Pauline Missal was promulgated in 1970. There was no “copying” of the Lutheran service.

These things are NOT in the Missal!!!

I didn’t mean copying of the Lutheran service. My mistake. What I meant was there was copying of other services. The fact that Protestants were present at Vatican II raises a red flag.

And it doesn’t matter if they’re in the Missal or not, those things still found their way into the Mass.

 

[Timothysis]

You mentioned it many times, but your claim is wholly unsupported by the statistical data. If things are as you say we’d expect to see a leveling of Mass attendance immediately before and after the liturgical changes. Instead sharp declines began immediately after VCII when the changes began to be implemented in 1965. Under the Old Rite we had 75% Mass attendance. We now have about 25%.

Actually, Mass attendance prior to the Council was already in decline here in America during the “Golden Age” of the 1950’s, the same with vocations. YOUR claim is unsupported by statistical data. Attendance in Europe had been in decline, too, before the Council. So there. It has been posted here nearly ad nauseum that people left because the Church did not change its classic stance on issues such as divorce and birth control.

The change in the liturgy did not bring back Protestants. In that you are right. There were, ironically, far more conversions before the reforms. The reason is that the Protestants can say the NO in their own churches, and the Conciliar Church insists there is no pressing need for them to convert to be saved, so why convert?

Please cite one instance where protestants celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass with a belief in the True Presence according to a liturgy of the Catholic Church.

 

[stevusmagnus]

That the Lutherans are so theologically weak minded that they can take something that is totally and distinctly Catholic and use it as their own without even comprehending the theology behind it. They like the sound of the words without the intellectual ability to understand the deep meanings behind them, much like people who quote Shakespeare because it sounds high brow, yet have never read a total work of his.

How charitable and ecumenical this statement is! So leading Lutherans are so intellectually inept and stupid that they just don’t realize that they are saying a “distinctly” Catholic Mass? They are really so blind and oblivious that they don’t even realize they are performing a liturgy that distinctly contradicts everything they believe in and hold dear? I’m certain they would be interested in knowing this.

Nice attempt at avoiding the question so I will ask again; if the Lutherans copied the Tridentine Missal for their service books, would you have a problem with “it.”

They’ve already copied a Catholic missal and yet are still not Catholic. Your logic is flawed.

Heretics have copied and say an ambiguous rite of Mass without any qualm of conscience. This should be a huge red flag to anyone with a Catholic sense left.

The Tridentine Missal is explicitly Catholic and explicitly professes the Catholic understanding of propitiatory sacrifice the Protestants reject out of hand. Just look at the offeratory of the TLM. This is heresy to Protestants.

Do you seriously believe Lutherans would adopt the Mass codified at Trent? The counter-reformation Council that condemned Lutheranism?

The very reason Bugnini and his 6 Protestant ministers changed the offeratory and other parts of the Mass was to please the Protestants.

Need proof?

Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.” And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)

 

[Timothysis]

I didn’t mean copying of the Lutheran service. My mistake. What I meant was there was copying of other services. The fact that Protestants were present at Vatican II raises a red flag.

Protestant observers were also present at the Council of Trent. In fact, some sessions were postponed until they could arrive. Do you suggest that this raises a red flag about the Council of Trent?

And it doesn’t matter if they’re in the Missal or not, those things still found their way into the Mass.

If they found their way in , then they can find their way out. Your whole argument against the OF is that these things are in there, yet you cannot show me where any of this is called for in the missal. So I really do think that it DOES matter. The Holy Father celebrates the OF, yet we do not see these things. The problem does not lie with the missal but those in charge who allow it.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

As has been mentioned numerous times before, Catholics did not leave the Church because of the change in liturgy (and, apparently, neither did the change in the liturgy bring in the wayward protestants; perhaps there is some other underlying element?); the continuance of the latin Mass would have seen the same loss of souls.

What makes you think this? The only reason there was any decline what-so-ever before Vatican II was because of modernism in the Church. Then Vatican II came along. I’ve heard of so many people who thought something didn’t seem right about the post-Vatican II Mass so they started going to Protestant services. There are also quite a few parishes that won’t offer the TLM at all that are lacking attendance. There’s one near me that is in danger of closing down because people asked for the TLM and the priest there said he wouldn’t do it. Now attendance is down there.

 

[Timothysis]

how charitable and ecumenical this statement is! So leading lutherans are so intellectually inept and stupid that they just don’t realize that they are saying a “distinctly” catholic mass? They are really so blind and oblivious that they don’t even realize they are performing a liturgy that distinctly contradicts everything they believe in and hold dear? I’m certain they would be interested in knowing this.

Heretics have copied and say an ambiguous rite of mass without any qualm of conscience. This should be a huge red flag to anyone with a catholic sense left.

The tridentine missal is explicitly catholic and explicitly professes the catholic understanding of propitiatory sacrifice the protestants reject out of hand. Just look at the offeratory of the tlm. This is heresy to protestants.

Do you seriously believe lutherans would adopt the mass codified at trent? The counter-reformation council that condemned lutheranism?

The very reason bugnini and his 6 protestant ministers changed the offeratory and other parts of the mass was to please the protestants.

Need proof?

please show me from the missal of pope paul vi anything that is protestant.