Which is a better term: Traditional, TLM, or EF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4gsd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Morgan_Hiver said:
Or perhaps it is unfortunate that there is something there which can be easily insulted?
Click to expand...
Okay, I prefer the TLM. I revel in the reverence, the beauty, and the tradition. In my opinion the TLM 's prayers - at the foot of the altar, at the offertory, and before Holy Communion for example - are more theologically dense than their counterparts in the Novus Ordo.

However, what’s important to remember is that both the TLM and the Novus Ordo are the same sacrifice of the cross. One is not ‘better’ than the other in the sense that they are the same thing on a metaphysical level.

So in the end, I don’t think it’s constructive to criticize a valid liturgy allowed by the Church, especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is, after all, the same form of the Mass Pope Benedict celebrates in Rome and that has spiritually fed many Catholics, myself included.
 
I attend both forms of the Mass, but my area the Ordinary Form is much more plentiful and available. I would attend the ExtraOrdinary Form much more often if I did not have to drive 50 miles+ one way for it. Both forms are valid, but I have more leanings towards the ExtraOrdinary Form, and wished I knew more about it much sooner & started attending it sooner too.

I don’t mind any of the terms to describe the Mass: Traditional, TLM or EF. Not all are aware of the EF term, and know only the Traditional or TLM terms.
 
ByzCath said:
So you think the council was called to “re-define” the Mass?

Can you point to which documents do this.
Click to expand...
I don’t think adstrinity is meaning to insult the Council or its documents. It is true that the Council did re-define parts of the mass. If you change an action, meaning is inevitably changed. We are human and what we see determines what we believe. If changed only even slightly, it can have a major impact on what we think about it and what we take from it. That is a either a dangerous or useful thing, depending on what it is you’re changing.
Paxvobis said:
I refer to it as the Traditional Latin Mass.

It’s funny to me how people call the TLM “THE Extraordinary Form” when Pope Benedict in the Motu Proprio as “AN extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Church.” That said, I think that any of these terms (Traditional, TLM, or EF) would be appropriate. Simply calling it the Latin Mass is vague since the Novus Ordo can also be celebrated in Latin.

Speaking of the Novus Ordo, I think it’s unfortunate that that term has been turned into an insult against the ordinary form of the Mass in the Roman Rite.
Click to expand...
Just wondering, what are the other Extraordinary Forms?

Also, I don’t entertain the saying that the Novus Ordo is insulting. I use the term freely and I’ve only encountered one poster on these boards who found it insulting.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I don’t think adstrinity is meaning to insult the Council or its documents. It is true that the Council did re-define parts of the mass. If you change an action, meaning is inevitably changed. We are human and what we see determines what we believe. If changed only even slightly, it can have a major impact on what we think about it and what we take from it. That is a either a dangerous or useful thing, depending on what it is you’re changing.

Just wondering, what are the other Extraordinary Forms?

Also, I don’t entertain the saying that the Novus Ordo is insulting. I use the term freely and I’ve only encountered one poster on these boards who found it insulting.
Click to expand...
Some people use the term Novus Ordo in a negative way. When you hear people say ‘the Novus Ordo church,’ for example.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Also, I don’t entertain the saying that the Novus Ordo is insulting. I use the term freely and I’ve only encountered one poster on these boards who found it insulting.
Click to expand...
“Novus Ordo,” is sometimes abbreviated as NO, as in, “NO Mass,” like, it is not a real Mass.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I don’t think adstrinity is meaning to insult the Council or its documents. It is true that the Council did re-define parts of the mass. If you change an action, meaning is inevitably changed. We are human and what we see determines what we believe. If changed only even slightly, it can have a major impact on what we think about it and what we take from it. That is a either a dangerous or useful thing, depending on what it is you’re changing.
Click to expand...
Could you point me to the documents from Vatican II where they re-defined the parts of the Mass?
 
ByzCath said:
Could you point me to the documents from Vatican II where they re-defined the parts of the Mass?
Click to expand...
If by redefine, he means change certain parts, a simple example is the removal of the prayers at the altar.
 
TrueLight said:
If by redefine, he means change certain parts, a simple example is the removal of the prayers at the altar.
Click to expand...
That was not done at the council. The OF Mass came after the end of the council.

I know the council called for an updated Missal but it did not say how this should be done.

I also do not think that the council “re-defined” any parts of the Mass and that is why no documents have been put forward.

But I could be wrong and am very interested in reading any documents from Vatican II that did so.
 
Paxvobis said:
I refer to it as the Traditional Latin Mass.

It’s funny to me how people call the TLM “THE Extraordinary Form” when Pope Benedict in the Motu Proprio as “AN extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Church.” That said, I think that any of these terms (Traditional, TLM, or EF) would be appropriate. Simply calling it the Latin Mass is vague since the Novus Ordo can also be celebrated in Latin.

Speaking of the Novus Ordo, I think it’s unfortunate that that term has been turned into an insult against the ordinary form of the Mass in the Roman Rite.
Click to expand...
The Ordinary Form of the Mass was never known as the “Novus Ordo.” It’s the Mass of Pope Paul VI and quite recently Pope Benedict XVI gave it the name “Ordinary Form” of the Mass. I have never met anyone who prefers the OF Mass use the label “Novus Ordo.” Not in this day and age. It seemed to be used only by those who prefer the EF Mass who enjoy taking a semi-politically correct jab at the OF Mass.
 
ByzCath said:
That was not done at the council. The OF Mass came after the end of the council.

I know the council called for an updated Missal but it did not say how this should be done.

I also do not think that the council “re-defined” any parts of the Mass and that is why no documents have been put forward.

But I could be wrong and am very interested in reading any documents from Vatican II that did so.
Click to expand...
I suppose a better way to phrase that is that the Council indirectly changed the meanings of the mass, as it called for a “reform,” which did all the changing. Nothing in the Council itself actually called for particular changes, no. But I suppose that’s what they get for being so vague, or rather, for entrusting the “reform” to a group of people who ended up not being the Council itself.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I suppose a better way to phrase that is that the Council indirectly changed the meanings of the mass, as it called for a “reform,” which did all the changing. Nothing in the Council itself actually called for particular changes, no. But I suppose that’s what they get for being so vague, or rather, for entrusting the “reform” to a group of people who ended up not being the Council itself.
Click to expand...
So then the statement that Vatican II redefined parts of the Mass is an error?
 
ByzCath said:
I just do not like to see a Council of the Church attacked for something it did not do.

Then please point me to the documents.
Click to expand...
I do not know of any, but, that doesn’t mean it’s not true. What is your take on the periti?
 
adstrinity said:
I do not know of any, but, that doesn’t mean it’s not true. What is your take on the periti?
Click to expand...
Hmm, everything that was discussed at the Council was in the creation of the documents.

So if there was a discussion to redefine parts of the Mass it would be in one of the documents.

I have a copy of the documents so if you can direct me to the correct one I will look it up.

I also read a book while on retreat written by an observer of the council as to what occurred and there was no mention of such a discussion.

You claim this happened so the burden of proof is on you. The lack of evidence proves other than what you claim.
 
ByzCath said:
Hmm, everything that was discussed at the Council was in the creation of the documents.

So if there was a discussion to redefine parts of the Mass it would be in one of the documents.

I have a copy of the documents so if you can direct me to the correct one I will look it up.

I also read a book while on retreat written by an observer of the council as to what occurred and there was no mention of such a discussion.

You claim this happened so the burden of proof is on you. The lack of evidence proves other than what you claim.
Click to expand...
Meh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top