"defending" The Tlm To Catholics...

[Hilde]

...is kind of awkward.

help?

[fides' Jack]

What specifically are you trying to do?

[Luigi]

I got nothin'.

[Hilde]

lulz, I mean in general really. But common comments I hear is that it's wrong that the congregation don't know what's going on, doesn't hear what's being said and don't contribute in the same way as in the NO. Also comments on "preaching" and how there's less of it in the TLM.
Consequentially it seems to me they are saying the church was wrong in what it was doing for quite a few years.

When I go to a tridentine mass I feel like I'm doing just that, I'm going to a mass. With a slightly different approach.

[Bennn]

According to Card. Ratzinger (now Pope BXVI of course), there is no such thing as a Tridentine Rite. The Traditional Latin Mass is rather the way in which the Eucharist was celebrated even before the Council of Trent. What Trent actually did was assembling the structures of the way in which Mass was already celebrated long before the Council, and promulgate it as the official Roman Rite. For about two thousand years Saints and Christian souls in general have received strength, holiness and inspiration out of this form of celebration, until it became practically forbidden when the new Missal was promulgated in 1970. It would be outrageous to say that until now, the Liturgy had always been celebrated in a wrong way.

It is also a grave mistake to say that we should understand every word in the celebration and that we should constantly be talking and answering.

+Pax Domini,
Ben

[mommas_boy]

I believe that it is wrong to present the EF as the "right way" to celebrate the Mass. Immediately following Christ's Ascension, the Mass was celebrated in the vernacular of the people of the area. This vernacular, of course, often included Latin -- but that was not the only language that the Mass was celebrated in. However, the Roman Church was not "wrong" to celebrate the Mass in only Latin; having one language allowed the Church to standardize to rituals associated with the Sacraments.

Instead, we should present the EF now as being about choice and tradition. When the Vatican Council allowed the Mass to be celebrated in the local vernacular, the original intent was to provide the Catholic laity with the choice to attend Mass in their vernacular or Latin. This intent was at first abused, with Bishops choosing to outlaw the EF in favor of the Novus Ordo in the vernacular. However, since the Motu Propio promulgated by Pope Benedict, we now have the [b]choice[/b] of attending the EF or the OF.

When defending the EF, defend it as a choice. List the reasons why someone might choose to attend one over an OF Mass. If they still disagree, reply that that's OK, because they have a choice. Explain to them that the EF wasn't wrong because it allowed the Church to standardize it's rituals. Basically, explain the [b]value[/b] of the EF, and allow them to [b]choose[/b] to buy into that value, rather than forcing it down their throats.

For myself, I love attending the EF. I also love attending some of the Eastern Rites. They are beautiful, and ... other worldly. They help me to realize that I have just left time and space, and am now worshipping in Heaven -- in part, because they are foreign to me. I also love all of the "little things" that are done: the small rituals that are placed here and there. I see the EF Mass, as well as Eastern Rite Masses as being simultaneously more carnal and spiritual than the OF Mass. Their nature, in addition to being foreign to me, helps me to worship better. So, I choose to attend one when I have the chance.

Edited May 25, 2010 by mommas_boy

[fides' Jack]

For my part, I can only relate my own personal experiences with the Extraordinary Form.


Just about the only arguments I have heard against it are judgments against the people who lived with the EF - that people in those Masses don't understand what's going on, because they don't understand Latin, that they don't really participate but instead just pray their rosaries through the Mass, and other such things.

I spent most of my life with the Extraordinary Form, and I can say that anyone who makes these claims never gave it a chance, and certainly doesn't know anything about the people who lived with that Mass. As far as understanding the language goes, you get to understand it after a short while. If you spend time around people who speak any other language, it doesn't take a huge amount of time before you start to understand what they're saying, even if you can't speak that language yourself. Learning the Tridentine form of the Latin Mass is the exact same way - except it's even easier, because the words are the exact same every week. As far as the accusation that people before Vatican II didn't participate in the Mass like they do today, I think I could make just the opposite claim, that Catholics today participate even less. Participation in the Mass, according to the Church, is primarily [i]interior.[/i] That is, it consists more in the prayerful state of the person than in outward actions. I certainly have a harder time concentrating at a Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) Mass. It's more noisy, and especially when the Church is suited with pews that sort of (or very much do) face each other, true participation becomes very difficult. So when people complain that there didn't used to be participation, in fact the opposite is true (or at least seems so to me) - participation was much better then.

Also, as has been demonstrated time and time again, though it's not due to the form of the Mass (just the attitudes of those who attend it), Catholics have [i]not[/i] been very well educated in the Faith since Vatican II. Before VII it wasn't nearly as big of a problem, and all of the "rad-trads" I know understand their faith much better than normal Catholics.


And that's my two cents on that - take it for what it's worth: the rants of a nostalgic rad-trad.

[Salve Regina]

I just like to take the approach that everything the Church offers to us is good. I think it's great that there are scholars, bishops, etc. who consider what can be improved in our liturgy, but I'm glad it's not my job. The form that the Mass takes is a huge responsibility.

As far as "defending" the older form of the Mass to people who don't have that perspective...People have mentioned that a common objection is that the faithful do not always know what is happening because they don't understand the language. I would say that we don't know everything about God, we don't know everything about Heaven, we still won't know everything when we're worshipping in Heaven, and even in a vernacular Mass we cannot begin to fathom what is taking place in front of us. The "Tridentine" Mass emphasizes the mystery which is there in any Mass.

The Catechism also says that it is good that we have many rites, because "The mystery of Christ is so unfathomably rich that it cannot be exhausted by its expression in any single liturgical tradition." (1201) And so no rite is perfect - there is always more to be said.