Would you take advantage of greater access to the TLM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter maryceleste
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
Unfortunately, after 5 years of listening to him, it has practically destroyed any possibility of doing so.:nope: In fact, I would change parishes if the one I went to changed to TLM only.

PF
Click to expand...
This is obviously your personal choice and does not really matter to me personally. I did, however, want to point out that if this is your only reason for not going, it does not seem very good. This decision will have no bearing on the person you speak of. Personally, I think you would be missing out but you will never know if you never attend.

I remember our first time at a Latin Mass. We had no Missals and no little red book to guide us through. We knew no Latin (we don’t even know a foreign language). In fact, we did not even know we were attending a Latin Mass, we were looking for a Church to attend Mass and we just walked in off the street. We didn’t even know there was such a thing, or that there was a difference between the NO and the Tridentine.

We were awe struck. We could not understand a word said but we knew it was absolutely beautiful and reverent and was unlike anything we had experienced since converting to the Faith. We went back for several weeks and just sat at the backand watched. After a few weeks, we asked some of the Parishioners about the Mass: what it was, where to get the little books they hold, etc. The rest is history. For awhile we went back and forth between the 2 Masses, but after awhile we started staying with the Latin Mass. I like everything to be just right (I am very nitpicky that way - really, if you move a vase in my house, I will know). When we attend the Tridentine, I always know what to expect, there are never any surprises from one Parish to the next. This works best for me. We got to the oint where the abuses and innovations were just too aggravating. I am not saying I have NEVER been to a reverent and awe inspiring NO, I have. Unfortunately, it was only once, and it was while traveling out of town. This particular order was run by an order that did both the NO (English and Latin) and Tridentine Mass. The NO was in Latin, and was done without any innovations. They did an excellent job.

If people would just think about what Mass really is, and act as they would if they could physically see Jesus standing in front of them, I think we would see less and less of everyone trying to insert their personalities into the Mass. We are not their to celebrate ourselves, but many forget this.

Now for the comment about changing Parishes, if you really feel this way, then I am sure you would also have no problems with those that feel the same way about the NO, right? I hope not, because it should work both ways.
 
If they offered a TLM in my parish - or, for that matter, anywhere in my diocese - you BET I would!

I just attended my first TLM Mass in 40 years in the neighboring (Pittsburgh) Diocese and I cried with joy all the way through it! I wanted to go so badly that the one-way 65 mile drive was worth it. I have no regrets, and long to go again.

I don’t see where it would hurt to have the Novus Ordo (done properly) as well as the TLM in each church that wanted it. St. Boniface, in Pittsburgh has two TLM masses on Sunday morning as well as the Novus ordo on Saturday night and one on Sunday morning. The TLM I attended was full and lots of young families there - who obviously knew what was going on!

Blessings,
sneakers
 
The TLM is coming to my parish on April 23! You had better believe I will be there for the first Mass and every TLM offered from now on.
:amen:
 
If the TLM was offered at a parish that is a respectable distance from my house I would attend every day without question or reservation.
 
It would be nice for the musically impaired that are not so good at pretending " joy" or into motion and commotion."
 
tom.wineman said:
It would be nice for the musically impaired that are not so good at pretending " joy" or into motion and commotion."
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
Right now the nearest non-SSPX TLM is almost 400 miles away…I’d go, but I’d need a private jet.
 
There is no indult anywhere in my state, so I haven’t been to a TLM since before Vatican II (and I was just a kid then). If the TLM became more available, I would certainly try it. I wouldn’t leave my current parish, though, since I think our celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass is beautiful and reverent. 🙂 Who knows, maybe the TLM will be offered in my parish!

Crazy Internet Junkies Society
Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
 
I appreciate our moderator’s reminder that posters need to stay on topic and avoid “bashing” others. :yup:

I hope it’s okay, though, to comment on the moderator’s quotation (which was written by Irish Melkite in a different thread). Its main point seems to be that the Pauline mass isn’t “sinful” or “invalid” (and I don’t think anyone on this thread has said that it is). It also seems to imply, though, that Catholics must believe that all approved liturgies are equally conducive to reverence, as long as they’re celebrated licitly. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Church teaches this. I believe it’s acceptable for a Catholic to hold the opinion that, for instance, the average TLM is more conducive to reverence than the average licit Pauline mass.

For instance, some “licit, but questionable” elements in the Pauline mass could include: the priest facing the people, the ICEL translation, the choice of Eucharistic prayers, contemporary OCP music, communion in the hand, etc. While the mass can be celebrated without any of these (Fr. Fessio’s “Mass of Vatican II” comes to mind), this isn’t required, and it’s extremely rare at this time. So, for those who are concerned about the above elements, the TLM seems to be a desirable option.

I’d also like to comment on the line that reads, “the form is only that - an external; ultimately, worship comes from within oneself, one’s heart and soul.” This may be all well and good for an adult who’s strong in his faith. In such a case, it might be more desirable to stay in one’s parish and “fight the good fight” to improve the current liturgy. But this can be a slow process, and, especially in the case of children and new Catholics (who are not yet formed in the faith), the externals are very important right now. One might say that the form is “forming” them. And I’d like my children to be formed by the most beautiful, most reverent (IMO) liturgy available - linguistically, musically, homiletically, etc.

I voted for “can’t currently attend, but would like to.” 🙂
 
40.png
maryceleste:
I appreciate our moderator’s reminder that posters need to stay on topic and avoid “bashing” others. :yup:

I hope it’s okay, though, to comment on the moderator’s quotation (which was written by Irish Melkite in a different thread). Its main point seems to be that the Pauline mass isn’t “sinful” or “invalid” (and I don’t think anyone on this thread has said that it is). It also seems to imply, though, that Catholics must believe that all approved liturgies are equally conducive to reverence, as long as they’re celebrated licitly. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Church teaches this. I believe it’s acceptable for a Catholic to hold the opinion that, for instance, the average TLM is more conducive to reverence than the average licit Pauline mass.

For instance, some “licit, but questionable” elements in the Pauline mass could include: the priest facing the people, the ICEL translation, the choice of Eucharistic prayers, contemporary OCP music, communion in the hand, etc. While the mass can be celebrated without any of these (Fr. Fessio’s “Mass of Vatican II” comes to mind), this isn’t required, and it’s extremely rare at this time. So, for those who are concerned about the above elements, the TLM seems to be a desirable option.

I’d also like to comment on the line that reads, “the form is only that - an external; ultimately, worship comes from within oneself, one’s heart and soul.” This may be all well and good for an adult who’s strong in his faith. In such a case, it might be more desirable to stay in one’s parish and “fight the good fight” to improve the current liturgy. But this can be a slow process, and, especially in the case of children and new Catholics (who are not yet formed in the faith), the externals are very important right now. One might say that the form is “forming” them. And I’d like my children to be formed by the most beautiful, most reverent (IMO) liturgy available - linguistically, musically, homiletically, etc.

I voted for “can’t currently attend, but would like to.” 🙂
Click to expand...
Nice post! 🙂
 
40.png
SMHW:
I said maybe because I’d probably go occasionally. My interest would probably be mostly for cultural and artistic reasons.

But it would probably only be rarely because my husband thinks the idea of Mass in Latin is kind of crazy. (He converted to Catholism as an adult.)
Click to expand...
Many adult converts to Catholicism, especially those from Protestant backgrounds, feel this way. I’ve met a lot of them.
 
40.png
maryceleste:
For instance, some “licit, but questionable” elements in the Pauline mass could include: the priest facing the people, the ICEL translation, the choice of Eucharistic prayers, contemporary OCP music, communion in the hand, etc.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “licit but questionable”? Do you mean practices which are approved by the Holy Mother Church but are also practices that you don’t like?

This position seems problematic. If something has been decided by the Church, it is licit and, because of the nature of the Church, good. It is certainly not questionable as it is really not our place to question valid decisions by the Church on the matter of Church law.
 
40.png
palmas85:
Many adult converts to Catholicism, especially those from Protestant backgrounds, feel this way. I’ve met a lot of them.
Click to expand...
I am an adult convert to Catholicism, as are many of my friends. All of us being from Protestant backgrounds. We love the Latin Mass and fully embrace it. Our backgrounds and our age of our conversion have not been a hinderance whatsoever.
 
40.png
Ham1:
What do you mean by “licit but questionable”? Do you mean practices which are approved by the Holy Mother Church but are also practices that you don’t like?
Click to expand...
It’s my opinion, but it’s not just my opinion. Many faithful Catholics, including priests, theologians, and laymen (such as the Adoremus society), believe that the current liturgy is in need of reform. For instance, have you read Fr. Fessio’s article that I linked to above?
40.png
Ham1:
This position seems problematic. If something has been decided by the Church, it is licit and, because of the nature of the Church, good.
Click to expand...
One can believe that something is “good” overall (as any valid mass is “good”), but that it’s perhaps “not so good” in comparison to other alternatives.
It is certainly not questionable as it is really not our place to question valid decisions by the Church on the matter of Church law.
Click to expand...
This attitude seems somewhat clericalist, and not in keeping with Vatican II’s teaching on the role of the laity. The Church isn’t so “top-down” or “black-and-white” as all that. In many areas relating to our faith – including matters of discipline, such as the liturgy – we can certainly hold our own views, make those views known in charity, and hope and pray that the officials of the Church take them into consideration.

I hope that you’re willing to take any further discussion of this to another thread. 🙂
 
maryceleste said:
**And I’d like my children to be formed by the most beautiful, most reverent (IMO) liturgy available - linguistically, musically, homiletically, etc. **
Click to expand...

“Then you should send them to a Pauline Mass, instead of one in which the priest mumbles his way through the Holy Sacrifice as rapidly as he can and where the laity spend the time of the Mass telling their beads.”

Did you like that characterization of “your” Mass?This, then, is the problem with dissing a liturgy that the Church has given us: some of us actually prefer it (communion in the hand is permitted by the Church and is a far more ancient practice, the Church can’t allow something that leads to impiety, etc., I’m sure you’ve heard all the arguments), actually love it in fact. People should just admit that they perfer one and leave the other be. AND I think that was the moderator’s point.

AND if it’s licit by view of the Church, then it isn’t questionable. You’ve used terms that don’t belong in the conversation (ie, “would you go to a Pian Mass if it were available?”). The Council of Trent said:
“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Session XXII, canon 7, Denz. 954.)."

Mass is like your Mom. No one is going to stand by and listen to anyone disparge their mother.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
“Then you should send them to a Pauline Mass, instead of one in which the priest mumbles his way through the Holy Sacrifice as rapidly as he can and where the laity spend the time of the Mass telling their beads.”

Did you like that characterization of “your” Mass?This, then, is the problem with dissing a liturgy that the Church has given us: some of us actually prefer it (communion in the hand is permitted by the Church and is a far more ancient practice, the Church can’t allow something that leads to impiety, etc., I’m sure you’ve heard all the arguments), actually love it in fact. People should just admit that they perfer one and leave the other be. AND I think that was the moderator’s point.

AND if it’s licit by view of the Church, then it isn’t questionable. You’ve used terms that don’t belong in the conversation (ie, “would you go to a Pian Mass if it were available?”). The Council of Trent said:
“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Session XXII, canon 7, Denz. 954.)."

Mass is like your Mom. No one is going to stand by and listen to anyone disparge their mother.
Click to expand...

What? Just because it is licit does not mean you cannot question it. Please do some research on the history of the Church. At one time there was LICIT liturgies that were made by Jansenist (sp?) heretics. Read this article for more info:defidecatholica.blogspot.com/2006/03/liturgical-stakes.html

Also, the priest does not mumble. He says the Canon silently out of respect and reverence. He isn’t putting on a show.

As for communion in the hand, there is no evidence that it is an ancient practice. Even if it was and you wanted to go back to the original way things were done that would be exactly what Pope Pius XII wrote against in his encyclical Mediator Dei where he writes against false antiquarism.

I find your post uncharitable and hypocritical. You say stop criticizing someone’s Mass and you do the exact same.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
“Then you should send them to a Pauline Mass, instead of one in which the priest mumbles his way through the Holy Sacrifice as rapidly as he can and where the laity spend the time of the Mass telling their beads.”

Did you like that characterization of “your” Mass?This, then, is the problem with dissing a liturgy that the Church has given us: some of us actually prefer it (communion in the hand is permitted by the Church and is a far more ancient practice, the Church can’t allow something that leads to impiety, etc., I’m sure you’ve heard all the arguments), actually love it in fact. People should just admit that they perfer one and leave the other be. AND I think that was the moderator’s point.

AND** if it’s licit** by view of the Church, then it isn’t questionable. You’ve used terms that don’t belong in the conversation (ie, “would you go to a Pian Mass if it were available?”). The Council of Trent said: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Session XXII, canon 7, Denz. 954.)."

Mass is like your Mom. No one is going to stand by and listen to anyone disparge their mother.
Click to expand...

somehow, I think you actually believe the highlighted parts… perhaps the new “crop” of young, zealous, orthodox priests we witness filling new pastor roles will rub off on you…I see most of them anxious to say, not mumble, the TLM.

“…try it,… you’ll love it…”
 
I go to the Pian Mass frequently. Several times a month actually.

What bothers me is the attitude of some traditionalists who do have a disdain for the Latin Mass. I just wish more traditionalists would support the Novus Ordo reverently celebrated than just complaining about how “derelict” it is.
 
40.png
SummaTheo:
What? Just because it is licit does not mean you cannot question it. Please do some research on the history of the Church. At one time there was LICIT liturgies that were made by Jansenist (sp?) heretics. Read this article for more info:defidecatholica.blogspot.com/2006/03/liturgical-stakes.html

Also, the priest does not mumble. He says the Canon silently out of respect and reverence. He isn’t putting on a show.

As for communion in the hand, there is no evidence that it is an ancient practice. Even if it was and you wanted to go back to the original way things were done that would be exactly what Pope Pius XII wrote against in his encyclical Mediator Dei where he writes against false antiquarism.

I find your post uncharitable and hypocritical. You say stop criticizing someone’s Mass and you do the exact same.
Click to expand...
I didn’t do anything of the kind. I** said** it was a characterization, I didn’t say it was true (though I’ve heard from older Catholics that a mumbled Mass and breakneck speed were common. I’ve also heard that isn’t the case). As for the Jansenists, what’s your point? They were heretics and thus outside the Church. The Pauline Rite is “INSIDE” the Church. As for communion in the hand, the point is that it is PERMITTED, thus it isn’t an abuse. It is permitted, thus it is anathematized to say that it leads to impiety. THAT was my point. “False antiquarism!” It’s your opinion that that’s what I’m engaged in. I don’t happen to insist on how people rec. communion. Either discipline is fine by me, BECAUSE BOTH ARE PERMITTED BY THE CHURCH!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top