What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

[Timothysis]

The NO “offertory” is nothing more than a Jewish table prayer (no doubt acceptable even to Jews).

You are ridiculous.

 

[malphono]

stevusmagnus;6549733:

The NO “offertory” is nothing more than a Jewish table prayer (no doubt acceptable even to Jews).

You are ridiculous.

As much as I hate to admit it, Tim, the origin of those prayers is from a Hebrew barachah.

 

[otjm]

Polls can be misleading or inaccurate, but these 2 are worth noting

catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007/11/poll-53-of-catholics-want-latin-mass.html

As noted in the blog, the poll was unscientific, had no controls for multiple voting, and was subject to people going to the blog. Not exactly what anyone would want to rely on in terms of any accuracy.

eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010/04/44-percent-of-germans-want-old-mass.html

This one is at least more interesting as it appears to ahve some credibility. Whether or not the questions were asked in a way that makes clear what it purports may be another question.

 

[stevusmagnus]

A non answer.

How is “all of it” a non-answer? I answered the question as asked. It may not be what you wanted to hear, but it is indeed a substantive answer.

Having just read the Lutheran service I can assure you that there is a world of difference between the fact that "* Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms"* of consecrated bread and wine (the elements)[7], so that communicants eat and drink both the elements and the true Body and Blood of Christ himself[8] in the Sacrament of the Eucharist whether they are believers or unbelievers” and the Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine BECOME the Body and Blood, the difference between transubstantiation and the condemned belief of consubstantiation.

No kidding. But where did I ever argue Lutherans and Catholics believed the same thing? I’m saying that they both arrive at their own interpretations of an ambiguous Mass text and thus both can say it without scruple of conscience. Just like Vatican II itself it can be interpreted in a Catholic light or an heretical light so can the New Mass. It is not explicitly Catholic, which is your position.

Also, there is not a wit of mention in the Lutheran service of “we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice” or “Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself” or “Lord, may this sacrifice” which indicate that what just occurred is a real sacrifice of propitiation, something that is explicit in the offertory - “Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts” and “Pray, brethern, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the alimighty Father, may the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name for our good and the good of all his Church” - something that is foreign in a Lutheran service.

First I don’t believe you quoted these things in your original post, which is what I was responding to.

Nevertheless, as the Lutheran pastor at VCII stated, the NO can be reconciled with Lutheranism based on the text alone. Now I will concede it may be he was talking about a specific allowable version of the NO. Bugnini wanted to remove the Roman Canon, but Paul VI kept it. However, Bugnini still watered it down.

The most telling version of the Novus Ordo is EP 2 which most priests say because it is shortest. A Lutheran would have no problem saying EP 2.

Other EP’s may pose some small challenges which is why Lutherans took the NO and made minor changes to conform to their style of worship. I repeat minor. However this does not deny the claim of the Lutheran pastor that he could use the NO as is if he wanted to.

Here are just a few ambiguities and possible interpretations for starters…

Sacrifice = sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, etc. Could have a myriad of meanings.

Church’s offering = could mean anything

Victim= Lutherans believe Christ was the victim.

Priest says “may our sacrifice” - blurs line between priest and people’s sacrifice. TLM distinguished clearly “your sacrifice and mine”.

If you cannot see the distinctly Catholic elements in the above as opposed to those doctrines held by the Lutherans then there isn’t anything that will satisfy you. So please explain to me just what, exactly, in the above can be understood to be Lutheran.

Again, all of it. The notion of propitiatory sacrifice is barely recognizable in the NO. Some versions (since there are 1,000 versions) more than others.

 

[stevusmagnus]

You are ridiculous.

You doubt the Novus Ordo offertory is a Jewish table prayer?

 

[EasterJoy]

The NO “offertory” is nothing more than a Jewish table prayer (no doubt acceptable even to Jews).

The “Blessed art thou, Lord of all creation” part is Jewish in form and origin, but you won’t find a Jew referring to Sabbath Challah as “the bread of life”, nor will a Jew making a kiddush blessing over the cup refer to it as “spiritual drink”. A Jew would not pray thus over his food, for it is obviously Catholic, not Jewish!

In the Eucharist, we “break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death and the food that makes us live forever in Jesus Christ. (Saint Ignatius of Antioch)

 

[Timothysis]

The most telling version of the Novus Ordo is EP 2 which most priests say because it is shortest. A Lutheran would have no problem saying EP 2.

EP 2 is the ancient anaphora of St. Hippolytus, one of the most ancient liturgies of the Church. Since it was on the scene over 1,000 years before the first protestant I think that we can say it is “distinctly” Catholic, unless, of course, you contend that there were protestants in the third century A.D.

The fact that a Lutheran can take something from the ancient Church and do enough mental gymnastics in his own mind to make it palpable to himself says more about him than it does the liturgy. I wonder what you would say if the Lutherans ever decided to adapt the Roman Rite to their services.

 

[stevusmagnus]

This is an explicitly Catholic offertory Lutherans cannot say that marks clearly the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice.

P: Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen.

This is the Novus Ordo offertory that even Jews can say.

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

See differences between the TLM and NO here:

the-pope.com/missals.html

This compares the NO in its most Catholic form (EP 1- Roman Canon) with the TLM.

 

[stevusmagnus]

The “Blessed art thou, Lord of all creation” part is Jewish in form and origin, but you won’t find a Jew referring to Sabbath Challah as “the bread of life”, nor will a Jew making a kiddush blessing over the cup refer to it as “spiritual drink”. A Jew would not pray thus over his food, for it is obviously Catholic, not Jewish!

In the Eucharist, we “break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death and the food that makes us live forever in Jesus Christ.

 

[ProVobis]

The fact that a Lutheran can take something from the ancient Church and do enough mental gymnastics in his own mind to make it palpable to himself says more about him than it does the liturgy. I wonder what you would say if the Lutherans ever decided to adapt the Roman Rite to their services.

Well, there may be some similarity. The Lutherans don’t have confessions and most Catholics don’t go to confession before receiving. Does the rest of the liturgy really matter to them?

 

[stevusmagnus]

EP 2 is the ancient anaphora of St. Hippolytus, one of the most ancient liturgies of the Church. Since it was on the scene over 1,000 years before the first protestant I think that we can say it is “distinctly” Catholic, unless, of course, you contend that there were protestants in the third century A.D.

The fact that a Lutheran can take something from the ancient Church and do enough mental gymnastics in his own mind to make it palpable to himself says more about him than it does the liturgy. I wonder what you would say if the Lutherans ever decided to adapt the Roman Rite to their services.

1.) It is not certain Hippolytus was the author

2.) Hippolytus was an anti-pope.

3.) We can’t be sure the ICEL translation is anywhere close to the ancient text.

4.) Conciliar reformers and Protestants are both fond of going back to the “ancient Church” to justify their positions. Thus before the counter-reformation and before specific Lutheran/ Protestant heresies were specifically refuted. The texts of that time were more rudimentary and basic and in modern times can be interpreted in various ways (just like the Bible).

the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/10/hippolytus-and-eucharistic-prayer-ii.html

When I was a student in Rome, I remember going with a priest for Mass in one of the ancient Churches. The priest said that he was going to use Eucharistic Prayer II because it was the most ancient of all the prayers and was specifically Roman, composed by Hippolytus. This was the standard view at that time (early 1980s) but has since been called into question. A number of people have recently mentioned the matter to me and so here are a few notes for you.

In the 19th century, a number of ancient texts were discovered that were similar to the “Apostolic Constitutions”, (of which the first modern edition was published in 1563). Among these texts was a document which came to be referred to as the “Egyptian Church Order”. In addition, the Canons of Hippolytus and the Testamentum Domini were discovered.

The scholarly consensus in the early 20th century on the dependence of these documents was that the “Egyptian Church Order” was in fact the “Apostolic Tradition” of Hippolytus, originating from Rome, that it was the earliest document, and the source of the others.

More recently, a number of scholars have questioned this consensus. Notably, Bradshaw et al. report the work of Metzger and extend it, saying of the “Apostolic Tradition” that:

We judge the work to be an aggregation of material from different sources, quite possibly arising from different geographical regions and probably from different historical periods, from perhaps as early as the mid-second century to as late as the mid-fourth.
(Bradshaw, P., Johnson, M., & Phillips, L. The Apostolic Tradition. A Commentary. Fortress Press. Minneapolis. 2002. page 14)
We need therefore to be careful about asserting too readily that the “Apostolic Tradition” is Roman, that it is our earliest liturgical source, that it is by Hippolytus and so on. The origin, authorship and dating of the document is not established with the certainty that would enable us to draw safe conclusions as a solid basis for practical liturgical proposals.

The reserve and caution in judgement of Bradshaw et al. contrasts with Vaggagini’s assertion that
“The anaphora of Hippolytus… would seem to give us the usual structure of an anaphora in the early Church”
(Vaggagini, C. The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform Geoffrey Chapman. London 1967 page 25)
Moreover, the text relied upon by those who composed the post-1967 liturgies was the reconstruction of Botte. While generally highly regarded,
“it gave the misleading impression that the reconstructed translation could be taken with confidence as reflecting what the author originally wrote, whereas any reconstruction involves a large number of subjective judgements, as well as the assumption that there was once a single ‘original’ text from which all extant versions derive.”
(Bradshaw et al. op cit page 12)
If the text from which Eucharistic Prayer II has been drawn up might be as late as the mid-fourth century, that does not give it any superiority to the Roman Canon, even were we to assume that archaeologism was a good way to construct liturgies. Parts of the Roman Canon are quoted by St Ambrose in the De Sacramentis establishing that it is, at least in part, of similar vintage.

In addition to Eucharistic Prayer II, the form (the words essential for validity) of the new rite for the ordination of a Bishop were taken from the “Apostolic Tradition”, presumably on the same understanding that they were by Hippolytus.

(The forms for the ordination of priest and deacon have remained the same in the new rite as they were in the old Pontificale. Interestingly, though, in the ordination of a priest, the words “secundi meriti munus” (office of the second rank) have been rendered “co-workers with the Bishop” by ICEL, gratuitously introducing a theological idea that was popular at the Council but not present in the ancient text.)

 

[stevusmagnus]

It’s been fun guys. I’ve got to run.

 

[EasterJoy]

How is “all of it” a non-answer? I answered the question as asked. It may not be what you wanted to hear, but it is indeed a substantive answer.

No kidding. But where did I ever argue Lutherans and Catholics believed the same thing? I’m saying that they both arrive at their own interpretations of an ambiguous Mass text and thus both can say it without scruple of conscience. Just like Vatican II itself it can be interpreted in a Catholic light or an heretical light so can the New Mass. It is not explicitly Catholic, which is your position.

First I don’t believe you quoted these things in your original post, which is what I was responding to.

Nevertheless, as the Lutheran pastor at VCII stated, the NO can be reconciled with Lutheranism based on the text alone. Now I will concede it may be he was talking about a specific allowable version of the NO. Bugnini wanted to remove the Roman Canon, but Paul VI kept it. However, Bugnini still watered it down.

The most telling version of the Novus Ordo is EP 2 which most priests say because it is shortest. A Lutheran would have no problem saying EP 2.

Other EP’s may pose some small challenges which is why Lutherans took the NO and made minor changes to conform to their style of worship. I repeat minor. However this does not deny the claim of the Lutheran pastor that he could use the NO as is if he wanted to.

Here are just a few ambiguities and possible interpretations for starters…

Sacrifice = sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, etc. Could have a myriad of meanings.

Church’s offering = could mean anything

Victim= Lutherans believe Christ was the victim.

Priest says “may our sacrifice” - blurs line between priest and people’s sacrifice. TLM distinguished clearly “your sacrifice and mine”.

Again, all of it. The notion of propitiatory sacrifice is barely recognizable in the NO. Some versions (since there are 1,000 versions) more than others.

By this line of reasoning, we should throw out our vernacular Bibles, too. After all, no one can deny that the Lutherans had them first. Heaven knows that it can be interpreted 28,000 ways, too. In fact, if we’d never gotten printed Bibles into the hands of the laity, there would be no Protestants! Making the Bible accessible to the laity has been a total disaster from the start…Look at the statistics! Better go back to the Vulgate version. We’ll commission one of those illuminated treasures for each parish. Nobody can argue it: they are a million times more beautiful than the editions out today. Chain them to the ambos, and put in some of that beautiful stained glass like the old cathedrals always had, so people can learn their Bible stories from those. We’ll have no misinterpretations, then. Everything will go back to the way it was before Gutenberg and Luther that bunch ruined the Church.

What exactly is this line of argument supposed to accomplish? It is not even remotely realistic.

I think that the way to turn people off of Velveeta is not to convince them it is awful. It is to feed them authentic Parmesan, or Vermont cloth-bound cheddar. And yes, some people have had their palates ruined and will still like Velveeta, but being exposed to the real thing is still the best way to run off poor renditions. You cannot turn back the clock. The Mass of Paul VI is not going to be suppressed. The best we can hope to do is to give people experience the Mass that will make them prefer to have it done well, and to reject bad incarnations of it.

 

[ProVobis]

…we should throw out our vernacular Bibles, too.

 

[Lormar]

I disagree.

Someday the Mass of Paul VI will someday be suppressed, but it will be long, very long, after you are gone. Maybe someone being born in the year 2010 will see it. I think it will just fade away on its own. You can’t conceive of it now because it’s all you’ve ever known; just like if you asked someone in 1930 if he/she thought that the Mass would ever change, or that one day Sisters would be running around in pants. If you had given them a verbal portrait of what we have today, they would have thought you were crazy.

 

[ProVobis]

Someday the Mass of Paul VI will someday be suppressed, but it will be long, very long, after you are gone. Maybe someone being born in the year 2010 will see it.

The first English NO Mass will be suppressed soon. I’m sure some of the other vernaculars will be suppressed in this century, some replaced, some not.

 

[Timothysis]

Well, there may be some similarity. The Lutherans don’t have confessions and most Catholics don’t go to confession before receiving. Does the rest of the liturgy really matter to them?

So whats your problem? I’ve notice for the past couple of weeks that your posts are nothing but attempts at sarcasm.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is an explicitly Catholic offertory Lutherans cannot say that marks clearly the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice.
P: Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen.

This is the Novus Ordo offertory that even Jews can say.
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

See differences between the TLM and NO here:

the-pope.com/missals.html

This compares the NO in its most Catholic form (EP 1- Roman Canon) with the TLM.

I think you have Jewish theology pegged incorrectly. The “will become for us the bread of life” line would not be remotely be acceptable. It is obvious that the bread will take on a life-giving characteristic other than literally being bread.

Would you approve of a Catholic blessing of a normal evening meal that referred to plain bread as something that will “become for us the bread of life”? I would think not! If liberal Catholics started adding that to a mealtime prayer for laypeople to say at home, orthodox Catholics would, quite rightly, come entirely unglued.

 

[stevusmagnus]

By this line of reasoning, we should throw out our vernacular Bibles, too. After all, no one can deny that the Lutherans had them first. Heaven knows that it can be interpreted 28,000 ways, too. In fact, if we’d never gotten printed Bibles into the hands of the laity, there would be no Protestants! Making the Bible accessible to the laity has been a total disaster from the start…Look at the statistics! Better go back to the Vulgate version. We’ll commission one of those illuminated treasures for each parish. Nobody can argue it: they are a million times more beautiful than the editions out today. Chain them to the ambos, and put in some of that beautiful stained glass like the old cathedrals always had, so people can learn their Bible stories from those. We’ll have no misinterpretations, then. Everything will go back to the way it was before Gutenberg and Luther that bunch ruined the Church.

The better example is a Catechism. Having a catechism that uses such vague and ambiguous language that it lend itself to both an orthodox and a heretical interpretation is unthinkable, yet that is what was done with VCII and the New Mass.

Instead you want a Catechism that is specifically and undeniably Catholic just like you want a Mass and Council that are as well.

The Bible was not meant to be a catechism. It is a product of Tradition and is to be read in context of that Tradition. Nevertheless heretics indeed interpret a lot of phrases in scripture that lend themselves (on face value) to more than one interpretation.

But the Bible is different from the New Mass. The New Mass is not the product of Tradition like the TLM. It is a fabricated liturgy produced by a commission and intentionally diluted of clear reference to propitiatory sacrifice to please Protestants. 6 of whom contributed to the commission!

I think that the way to turn people off of Velveeta is not to convince them it is awful. It is to feed them authentic Parmesan, or Vermont cloth-bound cheddar. And yes, some people have had their palates ruined and will still like Velveeta, but being exposed to the real thing is still the best way to run off poor renditions. You cannot turn back the clock. The Mass of Paul VI is not going to be suppressed. The best we can hope to do is to give people experience the Mass that will make them prefer to have it done well, and to reject bad incarnations of it.

Most orthodox Catholics don’t need convincing that their parish ICEL folk/ rock Mass is awful. They sit through it out of heroic obedience typically because their priest/ Bishop is too weak to challenge the liberal lay boards/ committees that support it.

But even those who attend reverent as possible NO Masses need to be educated as to the history of this Mass and why it was created to begin with and why it does not communicate the Catholic Faith as well as the TLM. It needs to be both and not either or.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Per CARA: the peak was in 1957 at 74%. By 1965, the end of Vatican 2 (and while the EF was in force for a significant pat of that period), attendancee was already down to 67%. That works out to about 1% per year.

Since you want to look at attendance rates, CARA shows that in 2003, 33% were in weekly attendance.

That means in 38 years, there was a 34% decrease or less than 1 percent per year.

Sharp declines simply do not show. It did not drop and then level off, but simply meaneered downward; with an increase interestingly in 2000, the Jubilee year.

And while you are at it, please source your conversion rates before and after Vatican 2 since you are implying without any evidence that concersions are down.

Did it ever occur to you that CARA probably isn’t right about Church attendance? There are plenty of sources out there that talk about attendance after Vatican II, alot of them with different figures. CARA’s stats can’t possibly be correct about numbers not falling much after Vatican II. I suggest looking at different sources and seeing which ones seem the most logical, because I’m not convinced by the stats CARA has.