Why Hostility for the Latin Mass?

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Liberals thought they had gotten rid of it forever. Then one of God’s surprises…SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM!

TLM was never fully gone. Never.

All Summorum pontificum did was simply restate that the TLM was not forbidden. It allowed willing priests to say Mass and not be objected to by the bishop. Yes, a “big deal” but not the end-all, be-all by far.

The whole “liberals hated it” is extremely divisive. One does not need to be liberal or conservative to raise pros and cons on both sides of the fence.

 

[MonteRCMS]

There have been a number of unpermitted “innovations” in the way the Mass is celebrated.

The position of the hands of the people is supposed to be reserved for the priest.

The holding of hands by the people during the Lord’s Prayer … NOT APPROVED.

Just two examples.

The way the Eucharist was consecrated became so “innovated” that all of our priests had to attend special training sessions.

People would self-not sure what the word is … they would drink the precious Blood without it being offered to them … they would take the chalice themselves.

Priests would offer the bread and wine in one prayer instead of with two separate prayers.

Sometimes music would be played during the actual Consecration. [Almost like some kind of supper club accompaniment.] [Finally, the pastor personally took the musician aside and made him stop doing that.]

 

[ProVobis]

Would this be why the BC has been largely replaced in practical use?

Actually the BC was intended for English-speaking countries. I don’t think one can dismiss its influence in spreading the faith in both England and the United States from 1850 on. Immigrants learning English caught on well to the way this catechism was taught.

According to CARA and other sources, Church attendance started to decline after 1950 or so. I don’t think it was a coincidence that the BC has been slowing falling into disuse since that time.

 

[Entwhistler]

I never said that I, personally, have experienced the hostility. What in the world makes you think I might be passing myself off as a martyr? Sheesh. I asked a simple question as to why there is hostility to TLM. Either say why you think so or say there is no hostility at all. Leave out the personal remarks. Or I will flag you.

 

[Duesenberg]

Actually the BC was intended for English-speaking countries. I don’t think one can dismiss its influence in spreading the faith in both England and the United States from 1850 on. Immigrants learning English caught on well to the way this catechism was taught.

The BC took the place of a national catechism because the US never produced one. The BC may have found use outside of the US, but I don’t believe that was its intent. The Q&A format of the BC is a wonderful way to learn, yet in the late 1960s well into the 1980s, it seems that a lot of Catholic writers and clerics felt the Q&A format was “stultified.” So instead of learning, people of my generation colored and made felt banners.

The one saving grace was my aunt. She gave me 3-4 editions of the BC that my older cousins had used. I read those at the behest of my parents and that’s how I learn my faith around the time of my first communion. The BC is now rather dated, but there are once again plenty of Q&A catechisms available today.

 

[Duesenberg]

I never said that I, personally, have experienced the hostility. What in the world makes you think I might be passing myself off as a martyr? Sheesh. I asked a simple question as to why there is hostility to TLM. Either say why you think so or say there is no hostility at all. Leave out the personal remarks. Or I will flag you.

I don’t think there is “hostility” towards the EF Mass. That’s the whole point.

You say it does not apply to you and that’s fine, but I do think that some manufacture charges of “hostility” towards themselves or the EF Mass itself, in effect to martyr themselves or the EF Mass so to speak.

 

[Duesenberg]

Also, in EF there is a rubric for Every Sing Thing the priest does and says. Stand this way, 27 million signs of the cross here. While in the OF (is it okay for me to say OF?) it is a little more free-flowing.

So? The rubrics for the OF Mass are very clearly defined, including the options. I think it’s nice to be able to celebrate the OF Mass as quickly as a Low EF Mass or with more pomp than a Pontifical EF High Mass without have to deal with 3 different versions.

 

[Vadne]

Again, if there is discontent about the phrase “Novus Ordo,” blame the man who started it…Bugnini. Because his title for the Mass he concocted (and yes, “concocted” is an accurate word) is a huge part of why so many people reacted as they did to it. On the one hand, you have the arguments that “oh, what Paul did is perfectly in continuity with what came before”…and then the reality of what happened, which Bugnini rather honestly details in his massive book on the “reform” (which is essential reading for anyone who cares to know what happened…recommend following up with the similar memoirs of Louis Bouyer, who co-wrote the infamous Eucharistic Prayer II).

 

[MonteRCMS]

Latin Mass is archaic.

We want NEW NEW NEW and MODERN MODERN MODERN.

There was some movie [“The Graduate”] in which the key word was “plastics”. That is the future. Plastics.

 

[BroIgnatius]

You’re te first one I’ve come across who has been offended by the term NO.

Well, I am offended by the term also. This is because it began as a pejorative term and because there is no excuse it. Use the correct term. Today, one of the correct terms is Ordinary Mass (OM). Can you not use that? People are using a correct designation for the Roman Missal is 1962 as EF, why not have the same respect for the OM?

It is when people who are confronted with this topic of the proper terminology and use NO anyway that is really becomes offensive since then we know the person is using the term as a pejorative.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Again, if there is discontent about the phrase “Novus Ordo,” blame the man who started it…Bugnini. Because his title for the Mass he concocted (and yes, “concocted” is an accurate word) is a huge part of why so many people reacted as they did to it. .

That is not true. He did not TITLE the Mass as New Mass. This is absolutely false and a myth. The Pope in his document, written in Latin, referred to a new mass (not a title). When translating the document into English the phrase novus ordo should also have been translated into English,. (new Mass).

Instead, those who did not like the Mass excised out that phrase in Latin and used it in Latin. Since Latin is the official language of the Church that made the phrase appear as an official title.

It is disingenuous and intellectual dishonesty to suggest that the pope TITLED the Mass as Novus Ordo. No such thing occurred. All Masses are officially titled as "Roman Missal of [whatever year].

 

[Vadne]

Until you have read Bugnini’s book, which details exactly what he called the Novus Ordo Missae, etc…by the way, a title that was stamped on the cover of the first printing of the, well, Novus Ordo Missae…you are out of your element in discussing this issue.

 

[BroIgnatius]

I have the read the document promulgating the Roman Missal. New mass was not used as a title. But, your insistence on using a non-official title is the problem.

 

[Vadne]

I said read Bugnini’s book, not “the document.” As for what an “official” title is…well that’s a semantics game, as you know. If you want to talk title stamped on the cover of the book…that would be Novus Ordo Missae. It wasn’t made up by some nasty traditionalist. The very man most responsible for concocting it called it that. He was honest at least in this regard: it IS a Novus Ordo Missae.

 

[BroIgnatius]

LOL, a book is not the official document that promulgated the Mass. Only the official document matters.

As for titles of books, most titles are created by editors, not authors. Since I am a publisher of some 35 years I know this to be true.

But, regardless, only the official document counts.

 

[Vadne]

The book entitled NOVUS ORDO MISSAE is the book that IS the Novus Ordo Missae, which contains the Ordinary of the Mass. And if you read Bugnini’s book…which, by the way, is a different book if you’re confused…he very clearly explains that he called it this. Not some editor, not some nasty traditionalist…but BUGNINI. The man who is most responsible for the liturgical text that he himself entitled NOVUS ORDO MISSAE.

But again, anyone with a shred of historical honesty who reads what he produced, and compares it to what preceded, would realize it is, indeed, NEW. If people don’t like that it’s new and find that pejorative…well, can’t blame the traditionalists for it.

By the way, if you then read Louis Bouyer’s memoirs, he vividly recalls how his part in all of it was to compose Eucharistic Prayer II in a trattoria in the Trastevere district of Rome in a great hurry so he could deliver it to Bugnini in time in the morning. Later in life he regretted his part in the whole scandal.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Vadne:
You mean Annibale Bugnini’s book? It is not entitled what you say. Its title is The Reform of the Liturgy (1948-1975).

In any event, this book is not a magisterial document. The Church is in charge of the titles of the Mass, not Bugnini. The official title is Roman Missal of [whatever year].

Get over it.

 

[BroIgnatius]

I think you are confused. It is the Church, not bugnini who gives the title to the Mass. The title is always Roman Missal of [whatever year].

What other people call it is meaningless.

Have respect. Call the Mass by its official title of official designation, which is the Ordinary Mass. Anything else is disingenuous, disrespectful, and not worthy of discussion as disparaging any Mass is grave sin.

 

[Vadne]

The thing is, anyone who wants to know how the Novus Ordo came about need only read the 900 or so pages of Bugnini’s book, which meticulously outlines exactly what he did and when. It is all quite thoroughly documented.

The title NOVUS ORDO MISSAE was stamped on the cover of the, well, NOVUS ORDO MISSAE. Again, it wasn’t some label made up by nasty traditionalists.

 

[Vadne]

And by the way, if anyone wants to go down the path that the NOVUS ORDO contains older prayers than the traditional ordinary…that has been debunked historically. At the time it appeared, the claim was made by some that Eucharistic Prayer II was the ancient Canon of Hippolytus, for example. That claim was false.