B
bear06
Guest
Uh, ditto! Thanks for saving me the time!
Who else is sick of people on this board bashing those that prefer the Novus Ordo
- Status
M
Mysty101
Guest
Hi Joanie,
Long time, no see
Me, too
F
fix
Guest
Even when we give the hasty innovator the benefit of the doubt, that the motivation is a sincere attempt to bring the Liturgy home to the people, it remains true that the results are generally disastrous. Unapproved innovations distract and annoy the people. They often draw attention to the priest rather than to God. They generally do not last long. They are often superficial. And they scandalize because they run against Church norms and regulations. If many lay people had only one request to make, they would ask that the priest celebrate Mass, or other rites, simply according to the approved books. Many lay faithful complain that rarely do they find two priests celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice in the same way. The Roman Liturgy is not a free-for-all experimentation field where each celebrant has the option to tag on his cherished accretions. Repeated and laid-down action is part of ritual. The people are not tired of it, as long as the celebrant is full of faith and devotion and has the proper ars celebrandi (art of how to celebrate).
Pope John Paul II laments that “some have promoted outlandish innovations, departing from the norms issued by the authority of the Apostolic See or the Bishops, thus disrupting the unity of the Church and the piety of the faithful and even on occasion contradicting matters of faith” (VQA 11). “It cannot be tolerated”, he continues, “that certain priests should take upon themselves the right to compose Eucharistic Prayers or to substitute profane readings for texts from Sacred Scripture. Initiatives of this sort, far from being linked with the liturgical reform as such, or with the books which have issued from it, are in direct contradiction to it, disfigure it and deprive the Christian people of the genuine treasures of the Liturgy of the Church” (VQA 13).
It is therefore clear that inculturation does not encourage banalization or trivialization of the Sacred Liturgy. Spontaneity run wild can manifest itself in many ways.
At the beginning of Mass the priest can trivialize by amusing the people on the weather, by saying “Good morning everybody” instead of “The Lord be with you” or “The grace of Our Lord…”, which are the proper liturgical opening greetings. He can banalize by an exaggerated autobiographical introduction and trite jokes in his misguided effort to warm the people up for worship! He may not realize that he is now drawing attention to himself instead of to God and the liturgical celebration of the day.
Other distractions and even desacralizations can come through dances that offend against good sense and do not help to raise people’s mind to God, loquacious and unnecessary commentaries, over-dosage of singing monopolized by the choir which allows no time for personal prayer, and the introduction of bizarre vestments and unacceptable vessels for the Holy Eucharist.
Online Edition - Vol. IX, No. 8: November 2003 **Cardinal Arinze’s Address to FDLC
Highlights of the Liturgical Renewal
adoremus.org/AdBull.html
**
Pope John Paul II laments that “some have promoted outlandish innovations, departing from the norms issued by the authority of the Apostolic See or the Bishops, thus disrupting the unity of the Church and the piety of the faithful and even on occasion contradicting matters of faith” (VQA 11). “It cannot be tolerated”, he continues, “that certain priests should take upon themselves the right to compose Eucharistic Prayers or to substitute profane readings for texts from Sacred Scripture. Initiatives of this sort, far from being linked with the liturgical reform as such, or with the books which have issued from it, are in direct contradiction to it, disfigure it and deprive the Christian people of the genuine treasures of the Liturgy of the Church” (VQA 13).
It is therefore clear that inculturation does not encourage banalization or trivialization of the Sacred Liturgy. Spontaneity run wild can manifest itself in many ways.
At the beginning of Mass the priest can trivialize by amusing the people on the weather, by saying “Good morning everybody” instead of “The Lord be with you” or “The grace of Our Lord…”, which are the proper liturgical opening greetings. He can banalize by an exaggerated autobiographical introduction and trite jokes in his misguided effort to warm the people up for worship! He may not realize that he is now drawing attention to himself instead of to God and the liturgical celebration of the day.
Other distractions and even desacralizations can come through dances that offend against good sense and do not help to raise people’s mind to God, loquacious and unnecessary commentaries, over-dosage of singing monopolized by the choir which allows no time for personal prayer, and the introduction of bizarre vestments and unacceptable vessels for the Holy Eucharist.
Online Edition - Vol. IX, No. 8: November 2003 **Cardinal Arinze’s Address to FDLC
Highlights of the Liturgical Renewal
adoremus.org/AdBull.html
**
E
Exporter
Guest
This thread’s name is Who is sick of people who bash those who prefer the Novus Ordo,or a facimily thereof.
I suppose that this thread was to be about those who bash the Novus Ordo and those who prefer it.
Here is an example of BASHING THE TLM group. This poster decided to give deleteious charateristics and border on name-calling of those who for good reasons prefer The Latin Mass. Yessir, here we have an example of one who uses the thread to rip and tear at other Catholic just because they prefer the Traditional Mass. The thread was to be about bashing the Novus Ordo Mass
The following is by poster otm:I am amused by the vehemence of those supporting the Tridentine rite, and bemused by certain traits I see in them. They tend towards the anal retentive in terms of psychology; overly concerned with rules, to the point of some of them approaching legalism. I am particularly amused by their “black and white” world view, one that does not have the word 'Nuance" in the dictionary. I smell more than an occasional whiff of self-righteousness. I also perceive a need for an emotional fix, one that is achieved by a very rigid approach to rubrics (how often do we see allusions to the fact that the rubrics can’t be messed with in the Tridentine rite?).
I don’t consider the rubrics to be the playground of the priest. Neither do I consider it magic; it is simply the vehicle for shaping and directing our worship. I have seen rubrics police so focused on exactly how the priest said the Mass, that I wonder if they had any time at all to experience Christ.
I am tired to death of the comments about the Protestantizing of the Mass in the Pauline rite; I would guess that most of those people have never set foot in their life inside a Protestant church of any kind, whatsoever. If they think the Mass has been Protestantized, they need to go sit through a few services; they would realize how fantastically rich the Mass is, how beautiful it is, how wonderfully we can worship and what a gift we have in the Eucharist, whether it was the Tridentine of the Pauline rite, and they would immediately realize how similar these rites really are. However, if one is by nature a nit-picker, one will never look up to see the bigger picture.
I suppose that this thread was to be about those who bash the Novus Ordo and those who prefer it.
Here is an example of BASHING THE TLM group. This poster decided to give deleteious charateristics and border on name-calling of those who for good reasons prefer The Latin Mass. Yessir, here we have an example of one who uses the thread to rip and tear at other Catholic just because they prefer the Traditional Mass. The thread was to be about bashing the Novus Ordo Mass
The following is by poster otm:I am amused by the vehemence of those supporting the Tridentine rite, and bemused by certain traits I see in them. They tend towards the anal retentive in terms of psychology; overly concerned with rules, to the point of some of them approaching legalism. I am particularly amused by their “black and white” world view, one that does not have the word 'Nuance" in the dictionary. I smell more than an occasional whiff of self-righteousness. I also perceive a need for an emotional fix, one that is achieved by a very rigid approach to rubrics (how often do we see allusions to the fact that the rubrics can’t be messed with in the Tridentine rite?).
I don’t consider the rubrics to be the playground of the priest. Neither do I consider it magic; it is simply the vehicle for shaping and directing our worship. I have seen rubrics police so focused on exactly how the priest said the Mass, that I wonder if they had any time at all to experience Christ.
I am tired to death of the comments about the Protestantizing of the Mass in the Pauline rite; I would guess that most of those people have never set foot in their life inside a Protestant church of any kind, whatsoever. If they think the Mass has been Protestantized, they need to go sit through a few services; they would realize how fantastically rich the Mass is, how beautiful it is, how wonderfully we can worship and what a gift we have in the Eucharist, whether it was the Tridentine of the Pauline rite, and they would immediately realize how similar these rites really are. However, if one is by nature a nit-picker, one will never look up to see the bigger picture.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I agree with all your comments, particularly the above. I was a Protestant for the first quarter of my life, moving from fundamentalist evangelical to high church Anglican. I don’t get this notion of the “protestantizing” of the Mass. The Mass in any form or rite is anathema to fundies and the High Churchers I hung out with would more than likely deny the Mass sacrificial character. They believed in a “consubstantial” presence at best and it wasn’t offered again or “re-presented.” They just like the “smells and bells” and thought it made for more reverent worship. Nothing in the NO resembles anything I’ve seen in a Protestant service!
I do think that it is important to distinguish between those who simply prefer the TLM/Indult and those who assert that the Mass of Paul VI is inherently flawed or who persistently confuse the abuses of the Mass with the nature of the Mass. I’ve no problem with the former, am quite sick and tired of the other, and am starting to wonder why they don’t leave us to our reprobation, if they think we’re so benightedly deceived?
O
otm
Guest
I agree that there is a major difference between those who simply prefer the Tridentine rite, or the Pauling rite said in all Latin, and those who appear to no longer believe in the guide fo the Holy Spirit in something as critical as the Mass.
Talking about the two is a little bit like opening Pandora’s box of music - and I don’t mean to encompass only liturgical music.
Those who are seriously into classical music seem to have little or no patience for those who prefer rock, and whatever subdivision of rock can be pretty critical of country/western, etc. I do not often find people with a taste for music that spans a number of styles; most seem to find something that fits and at least ignore, if not disdain, other genres.
I like the work of a number of classical composers, but I tend to what might be called the more lyrical, or more popular works. And I find a number of people who are deep into classical works to be somewhat like the people who prefer the Tridentine rite in terms of personality and outlook. And while we are at it, I can’t resist:
I have to thank fix for the quote from Cardinal Arinze. We had a Mass on Saturday night at one of the parishes in Portland which had a choir called, I think, Schola Cantora. They were extremely good singers, and very practiced, and while they were singing at the parish, once a year I would take the RCIA group from my parish to Mass there, to at least hear what might have been done in some parishes pre Vatican 2. The Mass was the Pauline rite in Latin, and would be fairly equivalent to a High Mass in the Tridentine rite. One year the choir was singing one of the Masses written by Palestrina (sp?). If you’ve ever listened to any of his Masses, they are gorgeous - and long, due to the polyphony and interweaving of voices.
I can really agree with the Cardinal, as I felt that I had been to a concert rather than a Mass. I went again the next day.
And I agree with pretty much everyting the Cardinal had to say.
K
katolik
Guest
Ajj, is it “Protestant preference” for the TLM or a true belief that it is better for the salvation of all, than the NO.
I am for the latter. The NO Mass is a Protestantization itself even if it is puffed up by priests in Roman chasubles, Latin, and said ad orientem.That is what the Ottoviani intervention written by two Cardinals and many bishops said in 1969. It didn’t take into fact all of the then nonexistent modernisms in the Mass.
From the Ottoviani intervention:
Paragraphs 3 from the introduction:
Oh yes and the conclusion of this same document:
And all this at one of the most critical moments - if not the most critical moment - of the Church’s history!
Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside of but within the Church. Her unity is not only threatened but already tragically compromised. Errors against the Faith are not so much insinuated but rather an inevitable consequence of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have been given equal recognition.
To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorised, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error
I am for the latter. The NO Mass is a Protestantization itself even if it is puffed up by priests in Roman chasubles, Latin, and said ad orientem.That is what the Ottoviani intervention written by two Cardinals and many bishops said in 1969. It didn’t take into fact all of the then nonexistent modernisms in the Mass.
From the Ottoviani intervention:
Paragraphs 3 from the introduction:
- We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. **It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law. **
Oh yes and the conclusion of this same document:
And all this at one of the most critical moments - if not the most critical moment - of the Church’s history!
Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside of but within the Church. Her unity is not only threatened but already tragically compromised. Errors against the Faith are not so much insinuated but rather an inevitable consequence of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have been given equal recognition.
To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorised, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error
- Status