Were as I was brought up in the Church with only the N O mass I feel more of a connection In the Tridentine Mass. I am not one of those that want the N O to go way, but I Find that there are distractions in it that would be better sured not being there. I don’t understand the need for Eucharistic Minister, ( we could do with out 8 or some people getting up from different parts of the church and going up to the alter) the same for the OT and Epistle readers getting up from different parts of the church then back to their seats .NOT wanting to get into weather or not we should have laity doing these parts of the Mass I just find it to be a bit distracting all the back and forth of people when we had A Mass that set thing up in away for them to be handled by the priest. I attend Both the TLM and the NO and I go to neither to hear the Mass but to come together with other in common worship of God and receive the Eucharist.
[/QUOTE]You all realize, of course, that the Mass was originally in Latin because it was the language of the people - vulgar. And after the dark ages when only royalty and clergy were literate it was retained and gradually the priest became separated from the people in the celebration of the Eucharist.
I believe that the Mass in the first 2 centuries was celebrated in Greek. After that what became the language of the Church went through many changes & adaptions until the Latin used during Mass became understandable to all :
St. Augustine made the necessity of this well-known with his words:
“I often employ”, he says, “words that are not Latin and I do so that you may understand me. Better that I should incur the blame of the grammarians than not be understood by the people” And before you all remind me that you don’t understand Latin, I’ll just say that you can understand the Latin Mass, the Mass said in the language of the Church…you can IF you want to.
superior only in having sacramental faculties, perhaps he should not be a priest. Isn’t that why Jesus washed the feet of the Apostles?
Barbara
I don’t understand your word ‘superior’ here. You seem to hint of the theology of the TLM. Mass (which is indeed different than the Communal Meal, “let’s all shake hands & sing Kumbaya” theology of the N.O.) found the priest to be “better than”. I have heard Vat.II Catholics refer to the “clericalism” that was supposedly found before the council. I would say that a bit of anti-clericalism was more present then. A new priest had to “prove himself” to the members of the congregation…much more than a new professor at the college, even a new doctor at the clinic.
Just remember that a doctor is not SUPERIOR to his patients, but his service to mankind is different than the service of a florist. The doctor & the florist are equal in value in the sight of God, but there callings are different.
As far as being a servant to his people, let me just say that my Father would have been APPALLED had a priest sent the man up the street to the hospital when Mother was a patient instead of coming himself. Perhaps today this seems selfish, but people in the 50’s would not have accepted a substitute (an EMM.), nor would the priest, himself, have felt it was proper. Thank God, that today such priests still exist…though, they’re hard to find. When Dad lay dying, the pastor of his large parish came to the hospital to give him the last rites &, as far as the world is concerned…or the parish, Dad was not an “important person”. However, the pastor saw him as a soul under his care.
).
You my friend are sooooooo messed up! I’;ve spoken often of the need for catechesis back then and you are , in my opinion, a casualty of the lack there of… God Bless!!
The harm will be done by the individuals themselves who refuse to go to Mass because it is the New Mass or the Latin Mass, of which they “disapprove”. It will not be the Church’s fault, or the fault of the parish, or the fault of the parish priest. Our society has lost its sense of self responsibility for individual actions and it is about time we re-trained our thinking and actions to take upon ourselves that self responsibility again.
I think my theology is pretty sound. I don’t go to Mass to get connected to Jesus. I am connected to Jesus - every day in every way! I go to Mass with my fellow Catholics who are connected to Jesus to celebrate the marvelous gift that He has given us - His own Flesh and Blood. In this case we get the information and the speeches - the readings, gospel and homily - before the banquet instead of after we eat. We who are attending Mass reinforce our connection to each other in addition to receiving Jesus. And we are sent out to carry that connection to the world.
Wow, you don’t read a lot of Catholic blogs, do you?
There’s more than enough to test ones Catholic faith right here. No need to look elsewhereWow, you don’t read a lot of Catholic blogs, do you?
What do you mean abuse? Others posting on thsi forum have said that without clarification. Please clarify. Tthanks.
I’ve seen a lot of pre-Vatican Catholics romanticizing the Latin Mass – forgetting that just as now, there were many, many Masses which were rushed through by the priests, the faithful came late or left early, etc.
CradleCath;3401403:
If that is what you got from my post, I didn’t express myself well. I’ll try again.
The Novus Ordo emphasizes the Last Supper, the Banquet, the gathering together of people & is similar to the services of Protestants. It de-emphasizes both Christ’s ultimate Sacrifice & the sinfulness of mankind that put Him on the Cross.
- The theology of the TLM., emphasizes the **Sacrifice of Calvary **& the fact that the Mass is primarily a renewal of this Sacrifice. It recognizes the fact that God demands this Sacrifice because of the sins of mankind.
In fact, mention of the Sacrifice of Calvary has been removed, as well as any sacrificial tone, and only the notions of praise & thanksgiving retained. The Sacrifice has become a “communal meal”. Even the altar, which was turned toward Jerusalem reminding us of the sacrifice of Christ to God, was replaced by a table in order to stress the new notion that the Mass is mainly a banquet, and not a sacrifice. This is reminiscent of Martin Luther, who declared that “The Mass is not a sacrifice but a Thanksgiving to God & a communion with all believers”.
It’s as if modern man cannot accept a God Who demands a Sacrifice for sin. They cannot seem to accept the fact that He is merciful, AND He is also just & we could not spend eternity in the presence of His goodness…had Jesus not been nailed to the cross to “pay our way”.
I could go on…the changing of the words “for many” to “for all”, etc.,etc. but this post is too long as it is.
- The “priesthood of the faithful” that is found within the O.N. seems to deny the fact that Christ gave the power to forgive sins, gave the keys of the kingdom to a select FEW & their successors. He gave the power to transform the bread & wine into His Body & Blood to a select FEW at the Last Supper. He carefully chose the men he wanted to be the foundation of His Church. Only 12 men…not all of those who believed in Him.
The blending of the clergy & laity is VERY obvious in the N. O.
In fact, the General Instruction on the Novus Ordo states that the “people of God” celebrate the rite with the “priest-presider.” This denial of the difference between the priest and the faithful is what the Protestant leaders taught when they declared that the celebration of the “Lord’s supper” is realized jointly by the priest and the people. The fact is a Mass is valid even when held with without a congregation, though this fact has been “hushed up” since Vat. II.
Thank you, Sure…for expressing interest in my thoughts.
