What's so great about the Tridentine Mass?

[slh3016]

Disclaimer: I am in RCIA converting from Evangelical/Southern Baptist Protestantism in the South soooooo please have patience with my ignorance about these issues

Questions:

What are the differences between the Tridentine (Latin) Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass?

Why do many hail the Tridentine Mass as being the most “legitimate” or feel that the Novus Ordo Mass is “lesser than” the Tridentine Mass?

Why do people get all worked up (“splitting hairs”) regarding the differences or feel that they are more pious than Catholics who attend Novus Ordo Mass. I know this is stereotyping but I have friends who attend a parish that going to start having Tridentine Mass soon (the first in our diocese in like 20 years) and I get the feeling that they feel a little more devout by attending this particular parish and are especially excited about the change in Mass. It’s almost elitist.

Being new to the Catholic scene, I’m just trying to figure out what the big deal is

 

[boomerang]

The Tridentine is old, very ritualistic and very beautiful. You spend a LOT of time on your knees. I think for a lot of people, it’s the novelty. Let’s face it, when the Novus Ordo came out, many people were hailing it as the best thing since sliced bread. Finally, the mass in a language I can understand! They were enthralled with the modern guitar music. The old hymns and organ music was so, you know, old.

Now that we’ve had the new mass for a few decades, it has become, you know, old. That’s how people are. They always want something else. The old becomes new, the new becomes old.

I think there’s also an emotional aspect of the Latin mass. A feeling that the world was a better place back then, and a longing to return to that era. And I think there is a little bit of elitism there, also.

 

[phil19034]

Disclaimer: I am in RCIA converting from Evangelical/Southern Baptist Protestantism in the South soooooo please have patience with my ignorance about these issues

Questions:

What are the differences between the Tridentine (Latin) Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass?

Why do many hail the Tridentine Mass as being the most “legitimate” or feel that the Novus Ordo Mass is “lesser than” the Tridentine Mass?

Why do people get all worked up (“splitting hairs”) regarding the differences or feel that they are more pious than Catholics who attend Novus Ordo Mass. I know this is stereotyping but I have friends who attend a parish that going to start having Tridentine Mass soon (the first in our diocese in like 20 years) and I get the feeling that they feel a little more devout by attending this particular parish and are especially excited about the change in Mass. It’s almost elitist.

Being new to the Catholic scene, I’m just trying to figure out what the big deal is

This question has a very complex answer.

1. keep in mind that there are 4 camps regarding this: those who feel the new Mass is invalid, those who believe the new mass is valid, but prefer the older one, those who appreciate the old mass, but prefer the vernacular, and those who who think the old mass is invalid and obsolete. The two extremes are outside the teaching of the Church.
2. today, people who prefer the older mass, prefer the ritual and solemnness. They are also tend to be people who prefer contemplative prayer. The priests who pray the old mass are very into liturgy and ritual, so it will be very beautiful & solemn.
3. people who prefer charismatic prayer prefer the vernacular and dialog prayers & hymns. Also, some parishes have adopted more charismatic music, etc.
4. before Vatican II, there were some priests who would pray the Latin mass so fast, some people had a hard time keeping up. So this leads to some people saying that they prefer the vernacular better because it allows them to know what’s going on durning the mass.
5. however, when the mass is in Latin, it forces you to study more about the mass in order so you can follow it, which in turn leads you to learn more about what each prayer in the mass is doing.

There is more to this, a lot of which is due to the confusion of the 60s and 70s. But I’m not going to go there.

Personally, I typically attend the new Mass (officially known as the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite), and occasionally attend the old mass (officially known as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite) when they have it at the Cathedral or when I’m in the neighborhood of a priest friend I have who prays it every week.

Learn to appreciate both, because they both have their strengths and can bring your closer to Christ if you learn the meaning behind the different parts of the Mass.

God bless

 

[slh3016]

The Tridentine is old, very ritualistic and very beautiful. You spend a LOT of time on your knees.

Oh my, I have back issues and what time I spend now on my knees often creates a lot of pain….but, I understand the solemness and appropriateness of it.

I think for a lot of people, it’s the novelty. Let’s face it, when the Novus Ordo came out, many people were hailing it as the best thing since sliced bread. Finally, the mass in a language I can understand! They were enthralled with the modern guitar music. The old hymns and organ music was so, you know, old.

Now that we’ve had the new mass for a few decades, it has become, you know, old. That’s how people are. They always want something else. The old becomes new, the new becomes old.

This was my feeling, too. It almost seems like the “organic” mentality of our society.

I think there’s also an emotional aspect of the Latin mass. A feeling that the world was a better place back then, and a longing to return to that era. And I think there is a little bit of elitism there, also.

So, basically, it’s a lot of emotion versus actual correctness of form?

 

[slh3016]

This question has a very complex answer.

1. keep in mind that there are 4 camps regarding this: those who feel the new Mass is invalid, those who believe the new mass is valid, but prefer the older one, those who appreciate the old mass, but prefer the vernacular, and those who who think the old mass is invalid and obsolete. The two extremes are outside the teaching of the Church.
2. today, people who prefer the older mass, prefer the ritual and solemnness. They are also tend to be people who prefer contemplative prayer. The priests who pray the old mass are very into liturgy and ritual, so it will be very beautiful & solemn.
3. people who prefer charismatic prayer prefer the vernacular and dialog prayers & hymns. Also, some parishes have adopted more charismatic music, etc.
4. before Vatican II, there were some priests who would pray the Latin mass so fast, some people had a hard time keeping up. So this leads to some people saying that they prefer the vernacular better because it allows them to know what’s going on durning the mass.
5. however, when the mass is in Latin, it forces you to study more about the mass in order so you can follow it, which in turn leads you to learn more about what each prayer in the mass is doing.

There is more to this, a lot of which is due to the confusion of the 60s and 70s. But I’m not going to go there.

Personally, I typically attend the new Mass (officially known as the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite), and occasionally attend the old mass (officially known as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite) when they have it at the Cathedral or when I’m in the neighborhood of a priest friend I have who prays it every week.

Learn to appreciate both, because they both have their strengths and can bring your closer to Christ if you learn the meaning behind the different parts of the Mass.

God bless

Thank you for such a thorough answer. From my little experience even hearing about it, it seemed that maybe the Latin Mass was the preferred choice of the “gotta dot every i and cross every t” Catholic Not saying that is bad, but for me personally, I think that I would become distracted from the true purpose of Mass just trying to keep up with the Latin

And I don’t really think it makes a hill of beans in the end for our salvation. But, that may be just a tad of the Protestant coming out in me I just didn’t like the feeling that was portrayed of “I’m a better Catholic because I prefer the Latin Mass.”

 

[phil19034]

Thank you for such a thorough answer. From my little experience even hearing about it, it seemed that maybe the Latin Mass was the preferred choice of the “gotta dot every i and cross every t” Catholic Not saying that is bad, but for me personally, I think that I would become distracted from the true purpose of Mass just trying to keep up with the Latin

And I don’t really think it makes a hill of beans in the end for our salvation. But, that may be just a tad of the Protestant coming out in me I just didn’t like the feeling that was portrayed of “I’m a better Catholic because I prefer the Latin Mass.”

One of the problems the Catholic Church has had since the rise of Protestantism is finding a way to keep the people in the pews in a perfect balance, away from the heresy of Protestantism on one side and the heresy of Jansenism on the other.

In response to Protestantism, some Catholics would become so pious that they wind up in (or coming close to) the heresy of Jansenism. Then, when fighting Jansenism, some Catholics wide up too close to Protestantism or modernism.

Any Catholic who puts down any licit & valid mass (or Divine Liturgy) is not acting very Catholic. However, it is very important to remove liturgical abuse and to offer different kinds of Masses.

God Bless

 

[slh3016]

One of the problems the Catholic Church has had since the rise of Protestantism is finding a way to keep the people in the pews in a perfect balance, away from the heresy of Protestantism on one side and the heresy of Jansenism on the other.

In response to Protestantism, some Catholics would become so pious that they wind up in (or coming close to) the heresy of Jansenism. Then, when fighting Jansenism, some Catholics wide up too close to Protestantism or modernism.

Any Catholic who puts down any licit & valid mass (or Divine Liturgy) is not acting very Catholic. However, it is very important to remove liturgical abuse and to offer different kinds of Masses.

God Bless

I hear/see the phrase “liturgical abuse” often…exactly what constitutes this?

 

[hazcompat]

CALVARY AND THE MASS
A Missal Companion

by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, Ph.D., D.D., LL.D., Litt.D.

PROLOGUE

THERE are certain things in life which are too beautiful to be forgotten, such as the love of a mother. Hence we treasure her picture. The love of soldiers who sacrificed themselves for their country is likewise too beautiful to be forgotten; hence we revere their memory on Memorial Day. But the greatest blessing which ever came to this earth was the visitation of the Son of God in the form and habit of man. His life, above all lives, is too beautiful to be forgotten; hence we treasure the divinity of His ”Words” in Sacred Scripture, and the charity of His “Deeds” in our daily actions. Unfortunately this is all some souls remember namely His Words and His Deeds; important as these are, they are not the greatest characteristic of the Divine Savior.
The most sublime act in the history of Christ was His “Death’. Death is always important for it seals a destiny. Any dying man is a scene. Any dying scene is a sacred place. That is why the great literature of the past which has touched on the emotions surrounding death has never passed out of date. But of all deaths in the record of man, none was more important than the Death of Christ. Everyone else, who was ever born into the world, came into it to “live”; our Lord came into it to “die”. Death was a stumbling block to the life of Socrates, but it was the crown to the life of Christ. He Himself told us that He came “to give his life as redemption for many”; that no one could take away His Life; but He would lay it down of Himself.
If then Death was the supreme moment for which Christ lived, it was therefore the “one thing” He wished to have remembered. He did not ask that men should write down His Words into a Scripture; He did not ask that His kindness to the poor should be recorded in history; but He did ask that men remember His Death. And in order that its memory might not be any haphazard narrative on the part of men, He Himself instituted the precise way it should be recalled.
The memorial was instituted the night before He died, at what has since been called “The Last Supper.” Taking bread into His Hands, He said: “This is my body, which shall be delivered for you,” i.e., delivered unto death. Then over the chalice of wine, He said, “This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” Thus in an unbloody symbol of the parting of the Blood from the Body, by the separate consecration of Bread and Wine, did Christ pledge Himself to death in the sight of God and men, and represent His death which was to come the next afternoon at three.[1] He was offering Himself as a Victim to be immolated, and that men might never forget that “greater love than this no man has, that a man lay down his life for his friends,” He gave the divine command to the Church: “Do this for a commemoration of me.”
The following day that which He had prefigured and foreshadowed, He realized in its completeness, as He was crucified between two thieves and His Blood drained from His Body for the redemption of the world. The Church which Christ founded has not only preserved the Word He spoke, and the wonders He wrought; it has also taken Him seriously when He said: “Do this for a commemoration of me.” And that action whereby we re-enact His Death on the Cross “is” the Sacrifice of the Mass, in which we do as a memorial what He did at the Last Supper as the prefiguration of His Passion.[2]
Hence the Mass is to us the crowning act of Christian worship. A pulpit in which the words of our Lord are repeated does not unite us to Him; a choir in which sweet sentiments are sung brings us no closer to His Cross than to His garments. A temple without an altar of sacrifice is non-existent among primitive peoples, and is meaningless among Christians. And so in the Catholic Church the “altar”, and not the pulpit or the choir or the organ, is the center of worship, for there is re-enacted the memorial of His Passion. Its value does not depend on him who says it, or on him who hears it; it depends on Him who is the One High Priest and Victim, Jesus Christ our Lord. With Him we are united, in spite of our nothingness; in a certain sense, we lose our individuality for the time being; we unite our intellect and our will, our heart and our soul, our body and our blood, so intimately with Christ, that the Heavenly Father sees not so much us with our imperfection, but rather sees us “in Him”, the Beloved Son in whom He is well pleased. The Mass is for that reason the greatest event in the history of mankind; the only Holy Act which keeps the wrath of God from a sinful world, because it holds the Cross between heaven and earth, thus renewing that decisive moment when our sad and tragic humanity journeyed suddenly forth to the fullness of supernatural life.

Peace

 

[Devekut]

There really aren’t any big divisions within the Traditional Mass “movement”. I get very tired of hearing people mention sedevacantists and those other traditionalists who are on the verge of such a position. Those “parties” are a very small minority. The majority of those who attend the TLM are very nice, normal people. They don’t think they are more pious or devout than Novus Ordo goers.

The NO, the way it has been implemented in the “spirit of Vatican II” doesn’t truly resemble what the VII council even had in mind. Gregorian Chant and Latin were never supposed to be thrown out into the trash.

The TLM isn’t a fad. People have fought very hard to preserve it since the 1960’s. Yes, people were excited that the mass was “finally in a language” they could understand, but not ALL people were that excited. The vernacular isn’t exactly a new idea. There are many traditional rites that use living languages in the Eastern Catholic Churches. I’m sure if there was an English translation of the TLM people wouldn’t have been totally upset but the “liturgists” went ahead and made the mass unrecognizeable to Catholics and very familiar to Protestants. Again, it wasn’t merely a change of the language, it was a change of the church itself; even if the church didn’t really change, people thought it did and popular thought rings true.

 

[thistle]

Disclaimer: I am in RCIA converting from Evangelical/Southern Baptist Protestantism in the South soooooo please have patience with my ignorance about these issues

Questions:

What are the differences between the Tridentine (Latin) Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass?

Why do many hail the Tridentine Mass as being the most “legitimate” or feel that the Novus Ordo Mass is “lesser than” the Tridentine Mass?

Why do people get all worked up (“splitting hairs”) regarding the differences or feel that they are more pious than Catholics who attend Novus Ordo Mass. I know this is stereotyping but I have friends who attend a parish that going to start having Tridentine Mass soon (the first in our diocese in like 20 years) and I get the feeling that they feel a little more devout by attending this particular parish and are especially excited about the change in Mass. It’s almost elitist.

Being new to the Catholic scene, I’m just trying to figure out what the big deal is

Just remember one is not more reverent than the other. That is only in the mind of elitists. Also, it is irrelevant if anyone considers the OF invalid because such people are ignorant. The Church declares both the OF and the EF to be valid and it is only what the Church states that counts.
You might be interested in knowing that the OF is not just celebrated in the vernacular but it is also celebrated in Latin.
Last, the Form of the Mass is a discipline and not doctrine. This means that apart from the consecration and the priest receiving everything else can be changed.

 

[slh3016]

There really aren’t any big divisions within the Traditional Mass “movement”. I get very tired of hearing people mention sedevacantists and those other traditionalists who are on the verge of such a position. Those “parties” are a very small minority. The majority of those who attend the TLM are very nice, normal people. They don’t think they are more pious or devout than Novus Ordo goers.

The NO, the way it has been implemented in the “spirit of Vatican II” doesn’t truly resemble what the VII council even had in mind. Gregorian Chant and Latin were never supposed to be thrown out into the trash.

The TLM isn’t a fad. People have fought very hard to preserve it since the 1960’s. Yes, people were excited that the mass was “finally in a language” they could understand, but not ALL people were that excited. The vernacular isn’t exactly a new idea. There are many traditional rites that use living languages in the Eastern Catholic Churches. I’m sure if there was an English translation of the TLM people wouldn’t have been totally upset but the “liturgists” went ahead and made the mass unrecognizeable to Catholics and very familiar to Protestants. Again, it wasn’t merely a change of the language, it was a change of the church itself; even if the church didn’t really change, people thought it did and popular thought rings true.

What is the essence of the TLM that makes people fight to protect it? What makes it superior or more desirable in their minds that the NO Mass? Surely, for there to be such strong feelings about it, there has to be a sentiment that is far deeper than just Gregorian chant and Latin That’s what I’m trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint.

The people I know that are so excited about the TLM commencing locally all were born and grew up post-Vat II so their desire for it comes across as more of one of an “elitist” nature than just a “Let’s get back to happier times” nature because they weren’t even alive when TLM was the norm

 

[slh3016]

Just remember one is not more reverent than the other. That is only in the mind of elitists.

Thanks, that’s what I wanted to know and what I suspected. This mentality is rather off-putting and is exactly what DH and I get phone calls about daily from still-Protestant family and friends who claim the Catholic Church is only about following the rules and not about a true relationship with Jesus. We explain time and time again that the Church really isn’t that way but then when you run across people whose biggest concern in life is whether they go to a TLM or not is extremely frustrating

Also, it is irrelevant if anyone considers the OF invalid because such people are ignorant. The Church declares both the OF and the EF to be valid and it is only what the Church states that counts.
You might be interested in knowing that the OF is not just celebrated in the vernacular but it is also celebrated in Latin.

That is interesting. DH can barely hear/understand what our non-American priest says already that he’d definitely be all the more lost if everything was in Latin

 

[OraLabora]

those who who think the old mass is invalid and obsolete. The two extremes are outside the teaching of the Church.

To be honest I’ve indeed met those who think the old Mass is obsolete, but never anyone who thinks it’s “invalid”.

 

[ProVobis]

Last, the Form of the Mass is a discipline and not doctrine.

Yes and no.

Let’s just say that there are doctrinal reasons for the low-tones, non-vernacular, incense, etc. in the liturgy. (See Council of Trent Session XXII) Yes, the anathemas/disciplines have been lifted and the doctrine has become almost completely ignored but the doctrine is still there and stated as such on the documents.

 

[ProVobis]

To be honest I’ve indeed met those who think the old Mass is obsolete, but never anyone who thinks it’s “invalid”.

You’re probably right, although there are probably many who think it’s illegal, schismatic, and/or deplored by the Church for whatever reason.

 

[Psalitte]

To be honest I’ve indeed met those who think the old Mass is obsolete, but never anyone who thinks it’s “invalid”.

Read the comments on Praytellblog long enough, they’ll show up once in a while…

 

[tawny]

This question has a very complex answer.

1. keep in mind that there are 4 camps regarding this: those who feel the new Mass is invalid, those who believe the new mass is valid, but prefer the older one, those who appreciate the old mass, but prefer the vernacular, and those who who think the old mass is invalid and obsolete. The two extremes are outside the teaching of the Church.
2. today, people who prefer the older mass, prefer the ritual and solemnness. They are also tend to be people who prefer contemplative prayer. The priests who pray the old mass are very into liturgy and ritual, so it will be very beautiful & solemn.
3. people who prefer charismatic prayer prefer the vernacular and dialog prayers & hymns. Also, some parishes have adopted more charismatic music, etc.
4. before Vatican II, there were some priests who would pray the Latin mass so fast, some people had a hard time keeping up. So this leads to some people saying that they prefer the vernacular better because it allows them to know what’s going on durning the mass.
5. however, when the mass is in Latin, it forces you to study more about the mass in order so you can follow it, which in turn leads you to learn more about what each prayer in the mass is doing.

There is more to this, a lot of which is due to the confusion of the 60s and 70s. But I’m not going to go there.

Personally, I typically attend the new Mass (officially known as the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite), and occasionally attend the old mass (officially known as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite) when they have it at the Cathedral or when I’m in the neighborhood of a priest friend I have who prays it every week.

Learn to appreciate both, because they both have their strengths and can bring your closer to Christ if you learn the meaning behind the different parts of the Mass.

God bless

Well stated.

 

[Devekut]

What’s so desirable to protect? We were told specifically to hold fast to traditions in the bible. The Church even tells us to protect ancient liturgy. Any liturgy that is older than 200 years does not need permission to be celebrated and should be retained. The TLM was stolen from us and very brave people preserved it. The TLM grew organically since the time of Christ (along with the other ancient rites still in use today). Ancient plainchant was specifically written for God; there is nothing else like it. The music at most NOs could basically be heard on the radio. I much prefer to leave the world behind and focus on God when I attend mass.

I hear people cry out that the TLM is a novelty but how can something ancient and still living be a novelty?

You’ll need to read what other apologists and theologians during that period had to say about the changes. Look into Dietrich Von Hildebrand.

 

[CB_Catholic]

What’s so desirable to protect? We were told specifically to hold fast to traditions in the bible. The Church even tells us to protect ancient liturgy. Any liturgy that is older than 200 years does not need permission to be celebrated and should be retained. The TLM was stolen from us and very brave people preserved it. The TLM grew organically since the time of Christ (along with the other ancient rites still in use today). Ancient plainchant was specifically written for God; there is nothing else like it. The music at most NOs could basically be heard on the radio. I much prefer to leave the world behind and focus on God when I attend mass.

I hear people cry out that the TLM is a novelty but how can something ancient and still living be a novelty?

You’ll need to read what other apologists and theologians during that period had to say about the changes. Look into Dietrich Von Hildebrand.

The tradition referred to in the Bible in that passage is Apostolic Tradition, not just traditions. The EF did not exist at that time, and Latin was not the language of the western Church. Many have interpreted this verse incorrectly, and that has led to incorrect conclusions and confusion. The form of the Mass is “tradition”, not Apostolic Tradition, which forms our doctrines and dogmas, and ''traditions" can be changed. Apostolic Tradition cannot.

Please understand this. I have a great respect for the EF, which is what I basically grew up with, but to claim it is part of Apostolic Tradition is error and should not be used as an argument for it.

 

[Devekut]

The EF didn’t exist as it is said today but it grew organically from the humble beginnings at the last supper. Smells and bells have much more root in the Temple than the new form does. I am very aware that the NO is 100% valid but let’s not pretend that it wasn’t constructed in a room with a specific purpose. I’ve seen reverent NO on EWTN. I feel that the closest thing to what VII had in mind with the NO is the Anglican Use said by the Ordinariate. The AU can be quite beautiful if only they removed the words from Cranmer that they demanded be retained.

If the ancient liturgy was good enough for all those English martyrs to die for during the Protestant revolt, and if it was good enough for converts like Blessed Cardinal Newman (who wrote many beautiful things about it) and good enough to give us thousands of saints, I think it is good enough to preserve.