What's so great about the Tridentine Mass?

[slh3016]

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.

But this sounds like you are assuming that the TLM is the ORIGINAL liturgy used in Mass, but that cannot be possible. Sooooo, again, why, in your opinion, is the TLM the “correct” form of Mass or is it just more your preference?

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.

Okay, so TLM grew organically (in your opinion) but it sounds like you’re claiming the growing should’ve stopped with TLM, “the perfected form.” Why could TLM not have continued to grow and evolve into NO?

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.

Honestly, I’m having a hard time understanding why, if the Mass is still offered, it really even matters about the other stuff (i.e., plain Gregorian chant vs. instruments, etc.). I think God is more concerned with our hearts being in the right disposition than the semantics of whether Latin or our own vernacular comes forth from our lips

But, there again, TLM vs NO would be subjective since obviously some people, like you, feel like you are able to focus on God more with TLM while others obviously feel that NO presents no problems with them focusing on God.

 

[slh3016]

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.

What scale is used to deem something “reverent” or not? Shouldn’t reverence be defined from the inside out versus the outside in? Shouldn’t reverence come from our hearts and express itself in our body language?

However, we also know that we can imitate the body language and not have one reverent bone in our body That is for God to judge, not us.

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.

But, I’m willing to bet that all those English martyrs and saints, after being in the presence of God, would probably tell us we’re wasting our time even having these discussions………

 

[ProVobis]

But this sounds like you are assuming that the TLM is the ORIGINAL liturgy used in Mass, but that cannot be possible.

Why is the ORIGINAL liturgy that relevant in our discussion? No one plays baseball or football as they were in the very early days. What counts is what adds stability to the liturgy and so far no one has proved the TLM did not or does not provide that. I would say that if one can read a 750 AD Missal today (without translation) that would be a good sign of stability.

 

[slh3016]

Why is the ORIGINAL liturgy that relevant in our discussion? No one plays baseball or football as they were in the very early days. What counts is what adds stability to the liturgy and so far no one has proved the TLM did not or does not provide that. I would say that if one can read a 750 AD Missal today (without translation) that would be a good sign of stability.

But, is TLM the gold standard against which to measure all other forms of liturgy? People, Catholics most especially, tend to use history as the gold standard to measure everything against (and history is the reason we are converting the Catholic Church) and I am trying to figure out that why TLM seems to be the gold standard for some when obviously it wasn’t the most historical form to begin with

And, as for adding stability, I, personally, depend on the Church, not the form of liturgy for stability. It’s not the form of liturgy that saves us, is it? I don’t say that be facetious; I say that meaning that it doesn’t matter when we stand, we we kneel, when we bow, how we sing, what language we speak in, etc., that saves us. Getting caught up in the other stuff, no matter how well our intentions, can distract us from Christ, and gives a message to the rest of the world that we are more about following the rules and rituals than we are about living out the gospel.

That’s just my :twocents:

 

[ProVobis]

But, is TLM the gold standard against which to measure all other forms of liturgy?

There are other liturgies such as the Maronite which have shown to be stable in the historical sense.

That said, there are parts of a lot of liturgies which have shown to be stable since the early centuries. Obviously the Latin EP1 in the OF, the Gloria, the Sanctus, Pater Noster, etc. which indeed have provided some continuity within the Roman Rite. I don’t think it was Vatican II’s intention to completely rewrite the Mass but it appears that the reformers and churchgoers wanted to make it seem so. Thus, the facing against the people, complete elimination of Latin, amplification of the silent prayers, tossing out the priest’s private prayers, add-libbing, addition of canons, etc.

As for depending on the Church for stability, fair point. It is interesting to note, however, that during the consideration of the Anglican Ordinariate as being a valid Catholic rite, it was determined that there was no theological or pastoral reason why prayers such as the Judica Me, Offertory, or the Last Gospel (among other things) were dropped so they remained as they were in that rite. This is not a matter of “going back” per se but a retention of sounder theology IMO. .

I don’t say that be facetious; I say that meaning that it doesn’t matter **when we stand, we we kneel, when we bow, how we sing, what language we speak in, **etc., that saves us.

Agreed. Yet we have edicts from bishops and parish priests telling us precisely when to bow, stand, kneel, etc. more so when the congregation pretty much knew what to do and not having translation wars, etc.

 

[CB_Catholic]

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.

Fine, but do not use the argument, which you and others have tried (I have read others using your argument) that The EF is part of Sacred Tradition. It is not. Use an honest argument if you must argue about it, not something you wish was true. You can’t hold a belief and then try to interpret the Bible to fit your belief, which is what you did. Catholics don’t do that (or should not–that is not a legitimate way to prove a point.) And also, remember that your opinion is your opinion, and not binding on any one, and the opinions of others are not binding on you. They all are opinions, not doctrine or dogma.

We are not discussing the Anglican Use Liturgy. The topic is the Tridentine Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

I am trying to figure out that why TLM seems to be the gold standard for some when obviously it wasn’t the most historical form to begin with

Was gold the monetary standard of the earliest of man? I would think not until civilizations had been developed to some extent.

And what a coincidence 1970 was the year of the new liturgy as well as Nixon’s dropping of the gold standard. Yet gold is still a precious commodity.

 

[thistle]

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.

Sorry but it not yes and no. The Form of the Mass falls under disciplinary law, and not doctrine. The only thing that cannot be changed is the consecration and the priest receiving. Everything else in the Mass can be changed. When it comes to disciplinary law (which the Form of the Mass comes under) a Pope cannot bind future Popes.

 

[ProVobis]

Sorry but it not yes and no. The Form of the Mass falls under disciplinary law, and not doctrine. The only thing that cannot be changed is the consecration and the priest receiving. Everything else in the Mass can be changed. When it comes to disciplinary law (which the Form of the Mass comes under) a Pope cannot bind future Popes.

That seems to be the prevailing post-Vatican II thinking but it misses the point IMO and undermines Trent.

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
DOCTRINE

Right there in black and white.

 

[slh3016]

Thank you for this explanation. I’m still trying to figure out why some people are so adamant about Latin versus vernacular. Apparently, it has nothing to do with validity but just personal preference from what I can tell.

 

[slh3016]

Was gold the monetary standard of the earliest of man? I would think not until civilizations had been developed to some extent.

And what a coincidence 1970 was the year of the new liturgy as well as Nixon’s dropping of the gold standard. Yet gold is still a precious commodity.

Not sure what you are implying or trying to say

Obviously, “gold standard” is an idiom in the sense that I used it

 

[Thomas_White]

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

I think what was meant here by emotion was not the form of the Tridentine Mass but rather a nostalgia for the past, for that era and time.

 

[ProVobis]

Apparently, it has nothing to do with validity but just personal preference from what I can tell.

If that’s the case then some prefer one theology over another. There is no perfect translation which could keep the theology and meanings the same over time, especially between Latin and English. No way.

As far as validity goes, De Defectibus provides quite a lot of leeway, considering that “for you and for all” doesn’t invalidate the consecration, though few dispute the change in theology there.

 

[StGerardMajella]

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

There is a great sense of emotional peace that comes from the Latin Mass. But it is also a highly organized, and very formalized liturgy, with very specific liturgical actions taken by the priest, deacons, and altar servers. The priest has little room to “innovate”.

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

I’ll give a free-form word association below:

Tridentine:

• Mass is said in Latin, with music typically in Gregorian Chant
• Tabernacle is in the center, on the altar
• Liturgical form is highly mechanized
• Very meditative and elevating for the parishioner
• Evokes beauty, reverence, heightened spiritual awareness
• Women wear veils; Men generally wear suits and ties, but not always
• Longer service - An hour and 15 minutes is typical
• Attendees tend to be large families, older individuals, and a vibrant younger generation of Catholics
• Attendees tend to be passionate about the Latin Mass, and very committed; Not uncommon for individuals to drive an hour or more to get to a Latin Mass
• Communion on the tongue, at the rail, kneeling
• Held in churches that can physically accommodate the liturgical differences
• Altar at the far wall, not standalone
• Priest says many of the prayers quietly, facing the altar away from the parishioners. Priest has less room to innovate, and has to follow a pretty strict liturgical routine.

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

The Latin comes easier over time. After a year or two, it gets easier to understand. You also have an English translation right next to the Latin in most Roman Missals.

It is the preferred choice for many because of the beauty of the Mass, the music, and the meditative nature of the liturgy. Most adherents are pretty passionate about the Latin Mass. It is very uplifting and elevating.

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

There are many types and forms of liturgical abuse. Almost all of the liturgical abuse has to do with a degradation of the reverence and solemnity of the liturgy itself, to the point of being construed as an affront to the Creator.

A simple example would be the removal of the Tabernacle from being at the forefront of the altar in the center of the church, and instead placed in a far off corner.

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?

Beauty, solemnity, reverence, respect. The Latin Mass is elevating, uplifting, and meditative.

But this sounds like you are assuming that the TLM is the ORIGINAL liturgy used in Mass, but that cannot be possible. Sooooo, again, why, in your opinion, is the TLM the “correct” form of Mass or is it just more your preference?

It is the form of the Mass that was used for centuries before the changes at Vatican II. It is the Mass of my parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents and further, so there is a lot of history there. Yes, it is a preference.

I think God is more concerned with our hearts being in the right disposition

The Latin Mass does just that. It gets you right with your Creator. If you really dive into it wholeheartedly, it can elevate your spirituality to a whole new level.

 

[thistle]

That seems to be the prevailing post-Vatican II thinking but it misses the point IMO and undermines Trent.

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
DOCTRINE

Right there in black and white.

I think you are missing the two points I made.

1. The Form of the Mass falls under disciplinary law and can be changed apart from the consecration and priest receiving.
2. In matters of disciplinary law a Pope cannot bind any future Pope.

So that I do not misunderstand you are you saying/suggesting that point 1 and/or point 2 is wrong?

 

[ProVobis]

I think you are missing the two points I made.

1. The Form of the Mass falls under disciplinary law and can be changed apart from the consecration and priest receiving.
2. In matters of disciplinary law a Pope cannot bind any future Pope.

So that I do not misunderstand you are you saying/suggesting that point 1 and/or point 2 is wrong?

I don’t think Trent mentions form of the Mass nor does it say much about one Pope binding or not binding another. But it does make doctrinal statements concerning the Mass such as this one:

CHAPTER V.
On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

This doctrinal statement clearly marks what are apostolic disciplines. Are you saying any Pope can simply eliminate the possibility of these disciplines as being of any value to one’s “meditation of divine things,” such as the Sacrifice of the Mass? This is certainly not my understanding of “disciplinary law,” whatever that is. Would you be so forgiving if one Pope decides vestments or candles aren’t to be used anymore?

 

[thistle]

I don’t think Trent mentions form of the Mass nor does it say much about one Pope binding or not binding another. But it does make doctrinal statements concerning the Mass such as this one:

This doctrinal statement clearly marks what are apostolic disciplines. Are you saying any Pope can simply eliminate the possibility of these disciplines as being of any value to one’s “meditation of divine things,” such as the Sacrifice of the Mass? This is certainly not my understanding of “disciplinary law,” whatever that is. Would you be so forgiving if one Pope decides vestments or candles aren’t to be used anymore?

You didn’t answer about my 2 points. Why is that?

I am saying that apart from the consecration and the priest receiving anything else can be changed because the FORM of the Mass falls under disciplinary law.

 

[Sirach2]

Bishops have the final say for the liturgies in their dioceses. That is why some have the authority to move solemn feasts like Corpus Christi and Ascension to Sunday, whereas other bishops have kept the Thursday observance. They may also mitigate the obligation to attend mass on a holy day if it falls on Saturday, yet others will not.

Another consideration that comes to mind is with regard to the change in vestments. Black was always the norm for masses for a decedent, but later theology uses white to bear fuller witness to the Resurrection of the dead.

We are all familiar with Pope BXVI’s preference for six candles on the altar, but local clergy are not required to do likewise, and two are lawful.

 

[HelenRose]

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.

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

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

No it is not basically a lot of emotion versus actual correctness of form. That statement is an backhanded insult to both forms. I am grateful that we have both forms because each form has something to teach us. There are special gifts in both forms. Why there has to be a conflict between the two is a mystery to me. I see the Traditional Mass as a rose and the Novus Ordo as a beautiful white daisy. One rich and lush, the other fresh and light. Both are beautiful and complex in God’s love.

 

[ProVobis]

I am saying that

I tried to be on topic but apparently we’re talking past each other so I’ll bow out of further discussion.