Who would be happy if every parish had to have a TLM Mass

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Sure;3402238:

Why was David allowed to “dance” before the Ark as it was journeying to be placed in its repository?

Yes David dance before the ark as it journeyed to to it new location. He did not dance In the house that was keep. As a matter of fact when the Ark about fell and the man that reached out and grabbed is was not a priest ordained allowed to do so and was struck dead.

 

[Cat]

Sure;3402238:

If that is what you got from my post, I didn’t express myself well. I’ll try again.

1. 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.

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.
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”.

1. 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.

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.
Thank you, Sure…for expressing interest in my thoughts.

I don’t agree with this at all. When I first started attending Mass (while I was still evangelical Protestant), it was quite obvious to me and my husband that we were attending a sacrifice. We didn’t get the impression of a “communal meal” at all.

Even now, after four years of being Catholic, we are moved to tears during Mass when we realize that we are present at the Holy Sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

I’m at work right now and can’t off the top of my head recall the specifics in the NO liturgy where the term “sacrifice” is referred to, but I know that the priests in our parish and in our diocese talk about “sacrifice” during the NO Mass.

Although the Protestant liturgical celebrations are similiar to the Mass, there is no way that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can be compared to most Protestant “worship services.” No way.

 

[SFD]

Digitonomy,

That’s a good observation. Now apply that same correct principle to the issuance of the Novus Ordo Missae and all the changes in the Sacraments.

Even the smallest of changes works some evil. See St. Thomas on this.

That’s why any change is weighed quite heavily in this area…it is very difficult if not impossible to jusitify the Paul VI liturgical and disciplinary changes here…that the evil they might work might be not be enormous. He complained about the “auto-demolition” of the Church…major and drastic changes are one way to achieve this end.

SFD

I have addressed this several times on this forum. I am interested in the principle expounded by St. Thomas that deals with changes to the law. You seem to want to invoke it today…and ignore it with respect to the period directly after the Council.

Do you think the men who were part of authority structure responsible for these drastic changes were unaware of St. Thomas on this point?

SFD

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I’m at work right now and can’t off the top of my head recall the specifics in the NO liturgy where the term “sacrifice” is referred to, but I know that the priests in our parish and in our diocese talk about “sacrifice” during the NO Mass.

.

“May the Lord accept the Sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name. For our good and the good of all his church.”

 

[Brother_John]

“May the Lord accept the Sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name. For our good and the good of all his church.”

Which raises a question…are we supposed to stand before or after saying that prayer? I see it done both ways at different parishes.

Cheers

 

[ProVobis]

“Which raises a question…are we supposed to stand before or after saying that prayer? I see it done both ways at different parishes.”

I don’t know but I wouldn’t want to start another Catholic war because of it. Stick with the parish which does it your way, I say.

 

[ProVobis]

“I’m at work right now and can’t off the top of my head recall the specifics in the NO liturgy where the term ‘sacrifice’ is referred to, but I know that the priests in our parish and in our diocese talk about ‘sacrifice’ during the NO Mass.”

You’re right, the meaning of the Holy Sacrifice is hard to find in the Novus Ordo Mass. You have to look at Eucharistic Prayer #1 for a better explanation, but this is seldom used.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Which raises a question…are we supposed to stand before or after saying that prayer? I see it done both ways at different parishes.

Cheers

You know I don’t know. I can not tell you which way it’s done in my parish as paying more attention to what is being said. I kneel when all knell I stand when all stand, I sit when all sit. I follow long in the missalett( as I am hard of hearing and can not hear all that is said at times) and sit stand knell when instructed to do. But since it is not defined what our posture should be at that moment Then which ever position has developed in your parish is correct.

 

[CradleCath]

I have addressed this several times on this forum. I am interested in the principle expounded by St. Thomas that deals with changes to the law. You seem to want to invoke it today…and ignore it with respect to the period directly after the Council.

Do you think the men who were part of authority structure responsible for these drastic changes were unaware of St. Thomas on this point?

SFD

While I realize that this post was directed to someone else, I’d like to give my thoughts. No, the council Fathers were not unaware of the words of St. Thomas re Liturgical change. However, there was a mind-set during the council that Aquinas’ words were old-fashioned & passe’.

. To St Thomas, the essence of the Mass is theocentric, not anthropocentric. It is God created, not man created. It is, he tells us, at one and the same time a figurative** re-presentation of Christ’s Passion, and thereby a true sacrifice**, and a channel of the fruits of His suffering, whereby the latter are rendered efficacious for our redemption, and thereby a true sacrament. It is indeed the greatest of the sacraments, the one towards which all the others are oriented. In it, Christ the High Priest offers Himself to His Father as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Berger again appositely quotes Mediator Dei, that “the priesthood of Jesus Christ is a living and continuous reality through all the ages to the end of time, **since the liturgy is nothing more nor less than the exercise of this priestly function”. **The sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the Cross are essentially identical, linked by the identity of the sacrifice, of the primary sacrificing priest and of the objective. The difference is one of presentation; in contrast to Calvary, the sacrifice of the altar is a mystical and bloodless one, in which Christ, the High Priest, acts through His representative, the celebrating priest. The modern notion that the priesthood of the laity is of the same nature or degree as that of the ordained priest, or that the latter acts in the name and as the representative of the congregation, is wholly incompatible with St Thomas and with sound Catholic doctrine.

From a book called “Thomas Aquinas & the Transcendent Liturgy” by David Berger.

 

[James0235]

Which raises a question…are we supposed to stand before or after saying that prayer? I see it done both ways at different parishes.

Cheers

The rule in the 1970 Roman Missal was to stand after the prayer was said. This was changed to standing before this prayer is said in the 3rd typical edition issued in 2002.

Where I think it get problematic is that while the 3rd typical edition was released in Latin in 2002 I don’t believe that it was ever translated into English. The upcoming new Mass translation won’t just be a translation of the 1970 Roman Missal. It will incorporate any changes made up through the 3rd edition in 2002.

So, in parishes where people stand after this prayer they are being faithful to the 1970 Missal in English. And where they stand before this prayer they are being faithful to the newest official missal for the Ordinary Form - but we don’t have an English translation for it yet.

As far as I can tell all parishes in the diocese of Columbus switched to standing before this prayer at the direction of our bishop at the time. But, if a particular parish stands after this prayer then I am not sure that it would qualify as an abuse unless there has been some directive requiring adopting the change even though we haven’t yet adopted the full Missal.

James

 

[SFD]

While I realize that this post was directed to someone else, I’d like to give my thoughts. No, the council Fathers were not unaware of the words of St. Thomas re Liturgical change. However, there was a mind-set during the council that Aquinas’ words were old-fashioned & passe’.

I am speaking of a change in discipline…a change in ecclesiastical law…not necessarily the liturgy. Drastic changes in the law are usually both unecessary and extermely disruptive. There is an evil associated with any change…let alone a major change.

This is commonly invoked on one side but dismissed on the other side of the very same issue.

SFD

 

[Sure]

If that is what you got from my post, I didn’t express myself well. I’ll try again.

1. 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.

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.
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”.

1. 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.

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.
Thank you, Sure…for expressing interest in my thoughts.

You are confusing the way you sometimes see the OF
Mass said with the OF Mass itself. The text of the OF is all about Sacrifice, it’s not about a communal meal. Maybe you just haven’t seen the Mass celebrated according to the rubrics with the proper reverence. The OF Mass does not blur clergy and laity when done correctly, nor does it de-emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

As for the “table” many many parishes use solid freestanding altars which have been used in many churches for the last 600 years or more. When Pope Benedict says Mass in St. Peter’s is it just a communal meal? Or does he adequately convey the sacrifice.

Don’t confuse the OF Mass itself with the way you might see it incorrectly said.

 

[ProVobis]

“The OF Mass does not blur clergy and laity when done correctly, nor does it de-emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass.”

All depends on which Eucharistic Prayer the priest decides to use, doesn’t it? It seems one can attend a year’s worth of OF Masses without realizing that it’s a Holy Sacrifice. Been there.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

“The OF Mass does not blur clergy and laity when done correctly, nor does it de-emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass.”

All depends on which Eucharistic Prayer the priest decides to use, doesn’t it? It seems one can attend a year’s worth of OF Masses without realizing that it’s a Holy Sacrifice. Been there.

You really think that the HMC would have prayers that are valid for use in the OF that de-emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the mass??

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

You really think that the HMC would have prayers that are valid for use in the OF that de-emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the mass??

Cardinal Ottaviani (among others) certainly thought it was possible (and he was dealing with the Mass as it stood in Latin, not how it was celebrated). The changes to the liturgy are a prudential decision:

1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.

latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Cardinal Ottaviani (among others) certainly thought it was possible (and he was dealing with the Mass as it stood in Latin, not how it was celebrated). The changes to the liturgy are a prudential decision:

1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.

latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

Yet the pope made the NO the ORDINARY FORM and saw no reason to ‘restore’ the TLM.

Now who do you trust as working hand in hand with the Holy Spirit on this?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Yet the pope made the NO the ORDINARY FORM and saw no reason to ‘restore’ the TLM.

Now who do you trust as working hand in hand with the Holy Spirit on this?

I don’t look at any prudential decision as “working hand in hand with the Holy Spirit” as if prudential decisions are infallible.

The NO was already the ordinary form and yes, in some sense he is restoring the TLM through Summorum Pontificum.

 

[KAL]

Obviously, most of you have never experienced the TLM. I grew up with it and I never, ever, never witnessed any abuses. You sound like a bunch of children with the “it isn’t fair” conversation. The Latin was taken out of the seminaries, that’s the real shame, since Latin is the official language of the Church, whether you like it or not.

Watch a Lutheran service on TV It looks exactly like the NO altar, priest and caboodle.

 

[Joannm]

at the very least they should have one TLM a month. and special holy days like christmas, triduum, etc.

During the Triduum you can have only one Mass on HOly Thursday, one service on Good Friday and one Vigil Mass. Unless a parish is planning on having all three in Latin you can’t have a Latin Mass and a venacular Mass…one has to be chosen and only one…and that will most likely be the venacular.

 

[Margarite]

I think there should be a TLM within 30min driving distance of anyone. There are about 10 parishes within 15 min drive of my home, and it would be unnecessary for all of them to have a TLM if no one liked it. There is a NO in Latin about 30 min away from my home and we go there almost every Sunday. It is great!

When we lived in Colorado, we drove an hour to go to a decent NO mass. We lived in the mountains outside of Denver. It must be a requirement, that if you are a priest in the mountains you must be some sort of weirdo, so we had to drive to Denver. The mass was worth the drive though, Holy Ghost church is BEAUTIFUL!
gtg
Yours Through Our Lady,
Margarite