The Novus Ordo Missae

[zunshynn]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='13 December 2009 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1260745726' post='2019892']

I grew up in the Pre-Vatican II times where the TLM was the norm.

It wasn't as great as many young Catholics, who are too young to have experienced the Church
prior to the changes, think it was.
[/quote]

I highly doubt that the problems you saw in "Pre-Vatican II times" were BECAUSE of the TLM.

So what if I wasn't alive in the 50s and the 60s? I wasn't alive in 90 AD either, but neither were you. I can still see value in the churches' heritage from that time period, and from 150 AD, and 400 AD, and 1000 AD, and 1300 AD, and 1600 AD and 1900 AD. You get my point. I didn't have to be there to be able to know that the Mass the Church celebrated in all those centuries is awesome. Especially when I've been to it and can tell it's awesome by experience.

Almost all of the people I know who did grow up then and think they dislike the EF because of that are basically clueless about what anything in the EF actually means. The problem with "Pre-Vatican II times" was not that there was something wrong with the Liturgy but that there was perhaps not as much understanding of the liturgy as there should have been.

Edited December 14, 2009 by zunshynn

[OraProMe]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='13 December 2009 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1260763347' post='2020061']
I highly doubt that the problems you saw in "Pre-Vatican II times" were BECAUSE of the TLM.

So what if I wasn't alive in the 50s and the 60s? I wasn't alive in 90 AD either, but neither were you. I can still see value in the churches' heritage from that time period, and from 150 AD, and 400 AD, and 1000 AD, and 1300 AD, and 1600 AD and 1900 AD. You get my point. I didn't have to be there to be able to know that the Mass the Church celebrated in all those centuries is awesome. Especially when I've been to it and can tell it's awesome by experience.

Almost all of the people I know who did grow up then and think they dislike the EF because of that are basically clueless about what anything in the EF actually means. The problem with "Pre-Vatican II times" was not that there was something wrong with the Liturgy but that there was perhaps not as much understanding of the liturgy as there should have been.
[/quote]

When I moved this year I innocently asked the priest of my new parish if there was a Traditional Mass anywhere in the deanery. Rather than getting a yes or no answer I received a lecture on how the Old Mass was all people on their knees and women reciting their rosaries and how lucky I am to have the New Mass. This is a priest who used the TLM at his ordination and even he didn't know (more likely didn't agree with) what the EF Mass is about, so I definitely see your point.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='13 December 2009 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1260763985' post='2020068']
Rather than getting a yes or no answer I received a lecture on how the Old Mass was all people on their knees and women reciting their rosaries and how lucky I am to have the New Mass.
[/quote]

How annoying!

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 December 2009 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1260760697' post='2020048']
Nearly every liturgical language in nearly every religion was at one time a vernacular. That's how one gets a liturgical language: the cultures surrounding a religious rite change, but the rite itself remains intact. If I'm not mistaken, Christ participated in Hebrew synagogue services, even though Hebrew has ceased to be the spoken language in Palestine long before the Incarnation.



Actually the ancient Roman Rite [i]is[/i] just as great as I think it is, if not greater. I have been attending Mass according to the 1962 Missal nearly every Sunday for five years. I probably have just as much experience with that form of the Roman rite as you do.
[/quote]


No, you wouldn't have the same experience, because the TLM isn't the norm, and has only just been allowed recently.

You're attending a Latin Mass in a church with a group of people, who take their spiritual life far more seriously than the average Catholic in your ordinary parish does.

I go to a Monastery on retreat, where they say the Novus Ordo. The reverence is unmatched by any parish in my dioceses. Why? Because the people in attendance make it so.

In the days before Vatican II, there were abuses in the Mass, as much as there are today. Exception being, most Catholics didn't understand that Mass all that well, so if a priest left out parts, few would notice. But no one in those days ever questioned the priests. In the parishes where I went to Mass, many people sought out the priest who could say the Mass in the shortest amount of time. If he skipped the Creed, all the better.

People sat in the pews and watched, many daydreaming, or some even sleeping. There were the few who followed along in the missal, but there were also those who said the Rosary. This was not participation in Mass as it should be.

Make the TLM the norm, and the Mass will be mangled at most parishes around the USA and Canada.

I have no doubt about it.

Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

zunshynn

[quote]
I highly doubt that the problems you saw in "Pre-Vatican II times" were BECAUSE of the TLM.
[/quote]

It wasn't the sole problem, but part of the problem, which is why the Vatican changed the Mass.
For most parishes, people had the same attitudes they have today, only it was less exposed. They went to Mass to fulfill their obligation, and that was about it.

[quote]
So what if I wasn't alive in the 50s and the 60s? I wasn't alive in 90 AD either, but neither were you.
[/quote]

But if we could hear a person from 90AD tell us what life was like, it be far better than merely reading about it, and conjuring up our own images.

The TLM is a beautiful form. However, the average Catholic was not connected with it. Its why Vatican II was called for, which is the greatest proof I can provide, to show that there was indeed a problem. Perhaps you don't trust the Popes and Bishops who meet at Vatican II?

[quote]
I can still see value in the churches' heritage from that time period, and from 150 AD, and 400 AD, and 1000 AD, and 1300 AD, and 1600 AD and 1900 AD. You get my point. I didn't have to be there to be able to know that the Mass the Church celebrated in all those centuries is awesome. Especially when I've been to it and can tell it's awesome by experience.
[/quote]

Vatican II didn't change the heritage of the Mass from those time periods, but instead, moved us toward better understanding. In fact, we're closer to the Mass of 150AD than the TLM is.

[quote]
Almost all of the people I know who did grow up then and think they dislike the EF because of that are basically clueless about what anything in the EF actually means. The problem with "Pre-Vatican II times" was not that there was something wrong with the Liturgy but that there was perhaps not as much understanding of the liturgy as there should have been.
[/quote]

Well, there was more education and preparation for the Mass before Vatican II, than what we have today.

I remember studying to become and altar boy. First off, you had to be in the sixth grade. You had to memorize the entire responses of the Mass, of course in Latin. You then had to take a test and pass, before you would be accepted. Then, you had a training in the Mass before you could step into the sanctuary. Also, when you served, you served with older and more experienced altar boys then yourself.
Even if you didn't become an altar boy, education was far more extensive. For one, most Catholic kids attended Catholic schools, run and taught by nuns or brothers. In my school, every Friday after school, we were marched down to the Church to rehearse Latin hymns, which we the school children were to sing each week at the 8AM Mass.

We also had Benediction on Fridays during Lent, after school.


Try doing that today with kids. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/lol_grin.gif[/img]

However, just as kids today do, if we could get out of attending, we would.

To me, making Mass attendance an obligation with the threat of committing a mortal sin, makes no sense. We end up with a church full of conformist, rather than a church full of faith filled people. Its
why many people are drawn to the TLM. They get a different group of people to attend Mass with.
They'd get the same with the NO, at a Monastery or other event where faith filled Catholics attend.


Jim

[zunshynn]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='14 December 2009 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1260803872' post='2020236']
It wasn't the sole problem, but part of the problem, which is why the Vatican changed the Mass.
For most parishes, people had the same attitudes they have today, only it was less exposed. They went to Mass to fulfill their obligation, and that was about it.[/QUOTE]

If people have the same attitude today as they did then, and the Mass changed, then the Mass wasn't the problem in the first place. Thank you for proving my point so concisely. Being concise has never been my strong point.


[quote]But if we could hear a person from 90AD tell us what life was like, it be far better than merely reading about it, and conjuring up our own images.[/quote]

So you're saying because we can physically talk to someone from the 50s, that is more meaningful than the writings that have been left from the first centuries of the church? I disagree.

[quote] The TLM is a beautiful form. However, the average Catholic was not connected with it. Its why Vatican II was called for, which is the greatest proof I can provide, to show that there was indeed a problem. Perhaps you don't trust the Popes and Bishops who meet at Vatican II?[/quote]

I do trust the Bishops that met at Vatican II. However, I don't believe that the Novus Ordo was quite what they had in mind. If you read some of my earlier posts, I pointed out a few discrepancies between what the NO actually does and what Sacrosanctum Concilium actually called for. And as someone has already pointed out, Pope Benedict has basically said that liberties were taken with the NO that the council never intended. Pope John Paul II made similar statements, I'm thinking in particular in the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and a few others.

Do you really think overall people are more connected to the NO than they were to the TLM. Alot of people think they feel more connected doing reiki and yoga and praising god in the vague form of the "Universe" or "the Other" etc... should the Church then incorporate those things in worship just because people think they would feel "more connected" if it was?. I'm not saying that the NO equates to those kind of abuses. But I don't get your point, and that reasoning is why.


[quote]Vatican II didn't change the heritage of the Mass from those time periods, but instead, moved us toward better understanding. In fact, we're closer to the Mass of 150AD than the TLM is.[/quote]

Umm... no, not really. The music that has been used by the Church for centuries, namely Gregorian Chant, is considered to be the closest representation to the chant of the Ancient Jews, which is what the church would have been using after the death of Christ. I would address the other aspects of the mass if I had time, but I really don't. Maybe I will come back to it after my finals are over.

[quote]Well, there was more education and preparation for the Mass before Vatican II, than what we have today.

I remember studying to become and altar boy. First off, you had to be in the sixth grade. You had to memorize the entire responses of the Mass, of course in Latin. You then had to take a test and pass, before you would be accepted. Then, you had a training in the Mass before you could step into the sanctuary. Also, when you served, you served with older and more experienced altar boys then yourself.
Even if you didn't become an altar boy, education was far more extensive. For one, most Catholic kids attended Catholic schools, run and taught by nuns or brothers. In my school, every Friday after school, we were marched down to the Church to rehearse Latin hymns, which we the school children were to sing each week at the 8AM Mass.

We also had Benediction on Fridays during Lent, after school.

Try doing that today with kids. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/lol_grin.gif[/img]
[/quote]

I have, they love it. The kids that I saw that attended mass at the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament seemed happier to me than any other kids I've met. Granted that was the NO most of the time and the EF occasionally, but the NO there was very similar to the EF in the sense that it was mostly in Latin, etc. Anyway, it bugs me when people go on this gripe that it's expecting to much of kids to memorize anything for the mass. They have no problem memorizing sports statistics and the lines from movies.

Personally, I wish that I had been encouraged to learn to chant and sing the other sacred music of the Church's history and to go to adoration of the Blessed Sacrament when I was little. But no, I was obliged to do things which have never been a part of the Church's 2000 year history (i.e. be an altar server, lector, etc.) because that would "fix" the church's patriarchal problem and make it "more connected" for everyone. I can only speak for myself, but in my experience I wasn't more connected to the church. I didn't even learn I was supposed to believe Jesus Christ was truly present in the Blessed Sacrament until I was 16, and that wasn't from catechism classes, that was from an online forum similar to this. How's that for being connected to the faith?

[quote]However, just as kids today do, if we could get out of attending, we would.

To me, making Mass attendance an obligation with the threat of committing a mortal sin, makes no sense. We end up with a church full of conformist, rather than a church full of faith filled people. Its
why many people are drawn to the TLM. They get a different group of people to attend Mass with.
They'd get the same with the NO, at a Monastery or other event where faith filled Catholics attend.[/quote]

It's a mortal sin because it is objectively very damaging to their souls to not be at Mass... that will never change. The Mass is the source and summit of our life, the supreme wellspring of grace. I agree that it would be good if the church was full of faith-filled people, and it surprises me that so many seem to go to Mass without really caring, esp. considering most of them don't mind committing other objectively grave sins.


Jim
[/quote]

Edited December 14, 2009 by zunshynn

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote]
If people have the same attitude today as they did then, and the Mass changed, then the Mass wasn't the problem in the first place. Thank you for proving my point so concisely. Being concise has never been my strong point.
[/quote]

Then you'd have to ask yourself, why did the Vatican Change it, if there was no problem?

Fact is, there was, and it had to do with people feeling disconnected to the Mass. They didn't participate in the Mass, but for the most part, merely attended.



[quote]
So you're saying because we can physically talk to someone from the 50s, that is more meaningful than the writings that have been left from the first centuries of the church? I disagree.
[/quote]

The writings will have come via those who lived in the 50's. Yes, talking to some one who lived during that time will always be more informative than merely reading about it.

[quote]
I do trust the Bishops that met at Vatican II. However, I don't believe that the Novus Ordo was quite what they had in mind. If you read some of my earlier posts, I pointed out a few discrepancies between what the NO actually does and what Sacrosanctum Concilium actually called for. And as someone has already pointed out, Pope Benedict has basically said that liberties were taken with the NO that the council never intended. Pope John Paul II made similar statements, I'm thinking in particular in the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and a few others.
[/quote]

Go and read Sacrosanctum Concilium again and pay close attention to the portions at the beginning and the end, as to why the changes were being made, and how those changes would not remain stagnant, as in the past.

[quote]
Do you really think overall people are more connected to the NO than they were to the TLM. Alot of people think they feel more connected doing reiki and yoga and praising god in the vague form of the "Universe" or "the Other" etc... should the Church then incorporate those things in worship just because people think they would feel "more connected" if it was?. I'm not saying that the NO equates to those kind of abuses. But I don't get your point, and that reasoning is why.
[/quote]

I do believe that more Catholics feel connected to the NO than they were in Pre-Vatican II TLM. For one, they can understand the language.




[quote]
Umm... no, not really. The music that has been used by the Church for centuries, namely Gregorian Chant, is considered to be the closest representation to the chant of the Ancient Jews, which is what the church would have been using after the death of Christ. I would address the other aspects of the mass if I had time, but I really don't. Maybe I will come back to it after my finals are over.
[/quote]

Gregorian Chant isn't the only Musich the Church has used, and its only connection to the Ancient Jews, is that of the Divine Office where the Psalms are sung. How many parishes in the United States and Canada, have a person with enough experience enough in liturgical music, that they could teach the average parish to sing Gregorian Chant? Besides, in the Pre-Vatican II TLM, the people didn't sing at all, the choir did all the singing.


[quote]
Personally, I wish that I had been encouraged to learn to chant and sing the other sacred music of the Church's history and to go to adoration of the Blessed Sacrament when I was little.
[/quote]

Don't compare your taste in music, with everyone else. I too love Gregorian Chant. But I can assure you, my adult children have no appreciation for it. Fact is, if the TLM were to become the norm, they may stop going to Mass altogether, because they would be so disconnected with it.

[quote]
But no, I was obliged to do things which have never been a part of the Church's 2000 year history (i.e. be an altar server, lector, etc.)
[/quote]

Gregorian Chant and in fact, the TLM, hasn't been around for 2000 years. I think you need to update your church history a bit.


[quote]
It's a mortal sin because it is objectively very damaging to their souls to not be at Mass... that will never change.
[/quote]

Most Catholics understand this in the most elementary sense.

I don't have to be told to attend Mass on Sundays or any other day when I can. I desire to attend.
There is a difference from understanding than merely being told and obeying.

[quote]
The Mass is the source and summit of our life, the supreme wellspring of grace. I agree that it would be good if the church was full of faith-filled people, and it surprises me that so many seem to go to Mass without really caring, esp. considering most of them don't mind committing other objectively grave sins.
[/quote]

Well, we just have to accept the fact, that most Catholic Parishes, are not filled with saintly devote people. Making the TLM the norm, wouldn't help the situation, trust me.

Jim

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='14 December 2009 - 10:45 AM' timestamp='1260809135' post='2020273']Well, we just have to accept the fact, that most Catholic Parishes, are not filled with saintly devote people. Making the TLM the norm, wouldn't help the situation, trust me.

Jim
[/quote]

and clearly, making the Novus Ordo the norm hasn't done so either. It's not the (M)ass's fault, its the fault of the (m)asses.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='14 December 2009 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1260812105' post='2020323']
and clearly, making the Novus Ordo the norm hasn't done so either. It's not the (M)ass's fault, its the fault of the (m)asses.
[/quote]


Actually, making the NO the norm has helped and perhaps helped to prevent an exodus of Catholics from the Church, as what was taking place in the 60's.

Again, if there was no problem with the TLM, the Vatican would not have changed it.


Jim

Edited December 14, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='14 December 2009 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1260815056' post='2020382']
Actually, making the NO the norm has helped and perhaps helped to prevent an exodus of Catholics from the Church, as what was taking place in the 60's.

Again, if there was no problem with the TLM, the Vatican would not have changed it.


Jim
[/quote]

and I disagree, of course. The Mass has been tweaked many many times over the centuries. There has never been anything wrong with past forms of the Mass.

Edited December 14, 2009 by goldenchild17

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='14 December 2009 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1260815451' post='2020401']
and I disagree, of course. The Mass has been tweaked many many times over the centuries. There has never been anything wrong with past forms of the Mass.
[/quote]


Nor is there anything wrong with the present form.

Because there are those who are not reverent with the NO, doesn't mean they'd somehow become reverent with the EF.

Abuses will happen regardless of the format of the Mass.

Jim

[Antigonos]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 December 2009 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1260736229' post='2019754']
Pope John VIII wrote (with my emphasis added):
"We rightly praise the Slavonic letters invented by Cyril in which praises to God are set forth, and we order that the glories and deeds of Christ our Lord be told in that same language. Nor is it in any wise opposed to wholesome doctrine and faith to say Mass in that same Slavonic language, or to chant the holy gospels or divine lessons from the Old and New Testaments duly translated and interpreted therein, or the other parts of the divine office: for He who created [b]the three principal languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin[/b], also made the others for His praise and glory" (From the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Slavonic Language and Liturgy").

So it seems like he is saying that, though it is indeed acceptable to celebrate the Liturgy in vernacular translations (with the approbation of ecclesiastical authority of course), celebrating the Mass in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin is more "ideal" in a sense.
[/quote]

Where is the Hebrew in the Mass?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='14 December 2009 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1260817734' post='2020446']
Where is the Hebrew in the Mass?
[/quote]
Rexi probably means transliterated Hebrew words and expressions (e.g., amen, hallelujah, etc.).

Edited December 14, 2009 by Apotheoun

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='14 December 2009 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1260817437' post='2020442']
Nor is there anything wrong with the present form.

Because there are those who are not reverent with the NO, doesn't mean they'd somehow become reverent with the EF. [/quote]

agreed, as I said above, the Mass is not the problem, we are.

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='14 December 2009 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1260817437' post='2020442']Abuses will happen regardless of the format of the Mass.

Jim
[/quote]

I'm not convinced of this, at least not in the magnitude that it has occurred. You say that you know because you have lived it, fair enough. I won't dispute your own personal experiences. However, I am a history major (not an expert by any means) and I believe the evidence shows a clear departure in behavior since Vatican II from that in all the years before that. Maybe you did have such experiences you describe as abuses, however I would contend that they are not the norm, and certainly don't compare to what are considered abuses today.

Is the Novus Ordo Mass inherently evil? No I don't believe so because I don't believe a valid Mass can be so, but I do believe it was written in a way (perhaps unwittingly so, perhaps not) that allows far more liberties than would be permitted in any other form of Mass.

Would abuses occur in any Mass that was the norm? Because of our times, probably. I would argue that there have been abuses in other valid liturgies, such as in the Byzantine. But nothing (at this point) in comparison to that in the Novus Ordo.

[JimR-OCDS]

goldenchild


[quote]
I'm not convinced of this, at least not in the magnitude that it has occurred. You say that you know because you have lived it, fair enough. I won't dispute your own personal experiences. However, I am a history major (not an expert by any means) and I believe the evidence shows a clear departure in behavior since Vatican II from that in all the years before that.
[/quote]

As a history major, you should have learned that the departure in behavior was not just in the Catholic Mass, but everything in society. It was a change in culture in general, not as a result of Vatican II, but rather, Vatican II responded to it.

The cultural shift actually began prior to Vatican II, but really got heated up during the 60's. Young people rejected the status quo, and questioned everything. Distrust of anything from the establishment, even science, was rejected or questioned.

Back in the 50's, people for the most part accepted whatever government and church leaders told them. The same was true within the Church. Anyone who lived during that time can recall mothers on a Friday afternoon, who accidentally prepared the family supper with meat in it, calling the rectory to find out if they could eat the meal without committing a mortal sin. The answer given was no along with, throw the meal out. Better to go hungry than to go into hell. Mothers for the most part, obeyed.

That mindset all changed in the 60s. The pendulum swung far left however, to the point where people didn't even trust science. Now the right seems to be on that level, but not to the degree of the 60's.

So, if you think people would show up for Mass well dressed and reverent if we had the TLM, think again. It would be worse than ever.

Jim




Maybe you did have such experiences you describe as abuses, however I would contend that they are not the norm, and certainly don't compare to what are considered abuses today.

Is the Novus Ordo Mass inherently evil? No I don't believe so because I don't believe a valid Mass can be so, but I do believe it was written in a way (perhaps unwittingly so, perhaps not) that allows far more liberties than would be permitted in any other form of Mass.

Would abuses occur in any Mass that was the norm? Because of our times, probably. I would argue that there have been abuses in other valid liturgies, such as in the Byzantine. But nothing (at this point) in comparison to that in the Novus Ordo.
[/quote]

Edited December 14, 2009 by JimR-OCDS