Dear Father: Please Stop It

[MarysLittleFlower]

On 1/22/2016 6:56:00, Peace said:

I am not saying this applies to you, but I have seen people take that to such an extent that it seems to turn into a form of spiritual gluttony. You don’t want to get into a mindset where you start to think “How dare you take away from my time with Jesus or distract from my prayers in order to greet some random stranger?”

I do not think that greeting one’s brother takes the focus off God or takes glory away from God. If that were the case the Church would have eliminated the greetings at the very beginning of Mass.

I think that greeting a visitor keeps the focus on Jesus and gives God glory. Various parts of the Bible tell us that when we do kind things to others that in effect we are doing them to God Himself.

I do not think that we want to put the rubrics on a pedestal. I don’t think the current rubrics even existed prior to 50 years ago, so obviously it is not the only means of worshiping. It is not as though the rubrics are some magical formula that will cause a person’s focus to be on Jesus, or if a specific set of rubrics is not followed a person’s focus will not be on Jesus. Although certain methods of worshiping can help in that respect it is ultimately the disposition of the person’s will that matters. If the disposition of your will is to commune with God would he deny you? Would Jesus say “Oh the priest said “sisters and brothers” instead of “brothers and sisters” therefore I shall exit the building because the Mass was insufficiently reverent"?

I do think that some people are a bit too caught up on the rubrics. I live in Arlington VA and it is a fairly conservative diocese. There are two parishes that offer the EF within a 15 minute drive of my APT. I have been to EF Masses. I have been to “Black and Red” NO Masses. I have been to “liberal” Masses in DC. At least from my experience, I cannot say that my worship was more “God focused” in one parish than the others. I feel like my worship was the same in all parishes, even though the specific form was different.

I cannot tell what is in a person’s heart but some of the times people who tout the rules so much seem to be more caught up in the idea of having things done “my way” or “the right way” or pointing out others errors rather than bringing genuine Glory to God. I have found myself falling into that attitude sometimes when I attend my girlfriend’s church. There are a group of people there earnestly worshiping God and instead of joining in and singing a song of praise too the Lord I think to myself “Why do they have a TV? That is not the proper way to worship.” I am more caught up on form than substance.

One Catholic Church I have been to in DC has a huge gospel choir like you might find at a Protestant African American Church. They do not chant or sing the parts of the Mass in a so-called traditional way at all. They do it in a much more vibrant manner, and they add in various other worship songs during the liturgy. What are you going to say to that? “No. No. No. The rule book does not say that this is the time to sing a song of worship to the Lord. We only sing songs on the way in, on the way out, and during collection, because that is what the rule book says.” ? That seems a bit ridiculous to me. They are sincerely worshiping God and bringing God glory. I can live with the fact that it is not in strict adherence with the rule book. And I would bet a penny or two that Jesus likes the songs too.

But let me ask you and some of the other traditionalists this question. If you had a “Black and Red” NO parish in your vicinity, would you attend it or would you continue to attend the EF? It would seem to me that if someone asserts that that Church’s guidance should be strictly adhered to when it comes to the form of worship (as typified by the phrase “Say the black do the red”) - then you would want to attend the form of the Mass that She has indicated as being more suitable for the spiritual development of Catholics today.  You would attend the NO, right?

Or would you continue to attend the EF anyway because in your own private judgement it is the more “reverent” way of worshiping? It seems that if you would continue to attend the EF anyway you would be inconsistent.

I would continue to attend the EF. I dont sew that as disobedient because as Catholics we are allowed to prefer the EF for our devotion. The reason I prefer it is because of more silence, more time to pray and more detailed prayers. I think we are free to do that because the TLM doesn't exist simply as a refuge from liberalism but its good in its own right.

On 1/19/2016 10:51:52, Julie said:

Exactly.

I remember going bonkers in the pew because of three tiny little things- one of which I don't think was even changing the Liturgy- it was just weird:

1) Father said "peace be with EACH of you ALWAYS"

2) Before the Our Father, instead of saying "Informed by divine teaching, we dare to say" (I'm like 90% sure... It's something like that. I haven't heard the English translation of the real words in years. But I know there's definately a "We have the audacity to be calling God 'Our Father' because Christ tells us to!"  vibe.) Anyways, he says something like "And now, let's say our family prayer."  I don't think I'd even notice, except that as a child I heard a homily preached about the actual words, and I've loved them ever since.

3) For some reason, we repeat the names of the sick people during the prayers of the faithful. So it's like this, lector: "and for those who are sick, especially Maria Lopez,"  everyone: "Maria" lector: "Joachim Onekuru" everyone: "Joachim" lector: "and Siobhan O'Hara" everyone "erm... Siobhan". I don't think this is wrong, but it's still weird.

 

 

ANYWAYS, that isn't the point. The point was that I let these tiny little errors take over the Mass: anticipating them before, wincing during, and grumbling during. Thinking uncharitably of Father, even as I prayed that peace would be with his spirit! There was definately some pride and self righteousness going on. It almost became a habit. For a while, I had to exert a lot of effort, reminding myself over and over "This is the Mass. Jesus is going to be right there on that altar in a minute, and then Father is going to carry Jesus down from the altar and put Him in my mouth. How could I possibly be grumbling at Father over a word!"  It took a lot of doing, and I still have to give myself a little pep talk when I go back home from school, though more because of a shock to the senses than because anything is wrong. "It's still the Mass, even if the music and church aren't as pretty and it doesn't smell nicely of incense. Those things are not the point."

Obviously, I'm a weak, sensual person, but at least, by the grace of God,  I'm better off than when I was on the road to becoming a holier-than-thou, hypocritical pharasree. 

 

*And I'm not even a "traddie"! I remember leaning in that direction, and being very excited about the daily EF at school, but... I actually prefer the OF. I choose it six days a week, and only go to the EF at all because my schedule on Thrusdays doesn't allow for any of three OF Masses. I even wish that we would sometimes have the OF in English (even though I enough Latin to follow along).  I wasn't a "traddie" but I was still a snobby liturgical stickler. It's right and good that we use the proper liturgy. It's not right to have a terribly attitude about it.

That said, there are still liturgical abuses. It's not just a memory from the "bad old days". I myself was a barefoot liturgical dancer, holding a clay bowl of incense (which burned my hands!) and sashaying around the altar in middle school (less than ten years ago!). I myself have been a child, in costume, in the sanctuary, acting out the Gospel as Father read it from down in the midst of the sanctuary, and things like that.

But that is nowhere near the norm. That parish was the exception. Just like that parish school was the exception, and most Catholic schools do not make children read the Bible after school as a "punishment" for dropping a crayon. 

What do you think of the approach of caring about abuses but if they happen just excusing the priest or praying for him? It seems like there are two polarized views here... To accept any liturgy or be judgemental. I think there's a third option.. But I've certainly had those temptations too. I just don't want to go the opposite direction and not care ? 

On 1/20/2016 12:39:37, Amppax said:

Yes, there's several professors here who do so at our all school masses (which are unfortunately held in our gymnasium ),  but most people are too scared to stand.  

I've been to school Masses (I'm a teacher) and the other teachers sat... I was the only one who knelt. It was really uncomfortable because I felt I stood out. 

On 1/21/2016 2:19:10, Anomaly said:

One might as well attend a Universalist service.

I'm glad over the years Phatmass posters and others have noted the disintegration of the Catholic Church from within.  The gates were not overcome, destruction simply came from within.  

Most Catholics I know from childhood are no longer Catholic or are barely nominally practicing. It's such an unhappy organization.  Now it is further losing its inertia as it succumbs to irrelevancy and whim.   God didn't save it from the Reformation any more than Allah is going to save Islam from Sunnis and Shiites. Religion can't help but be what it always was.  

The Church is going through a crisis but the difference is it won't fall..  I don't think its an organisation. Its a living Body. It has a divine and human element. The human element can go wrong but that's not the whole story. Theres a difference from other religions because the Church is Christ's Body on earth. 

(I mean the Church Militant). 

The Church is also in Heaven and Purgatory.. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by MarysLittleFlower

[Cam42]

On 1/24/2016, 12:58:55, Peace said:

I haven't created a comparison chart, but the NO seems to generally do what is called for in it. Where does the NO go too far, in your opinion?

Hmm. What do you mean by "ex nihilo"? Do you mean "out of nothing" as it translates to, or something else?

It seems to me that the NO is based on the traditions of the Church, including some of the traditions found in the EF, and some from among other traditions of the Church. I don't think the NO was just invented out of thin air or without good reason.

While I have you on the line - do you think that it is a bit unnecessary for people living in America today to attend a Mass that is recited in a language that virtually nobody speaks, either here in the US or around the world? Wouldn't that have been basically the same as people living in Rome saying "Although Latin is the langauge that we all speak, let us continue to conduct the mass in Amharic or Greek as that was the language of the early Christians, even though none of us actually speak it." It seems that they chose to do it in their own language, so that the common man could actually understand it without specialized study. Exactly what is the argument for holding the Mass in Latin today, even though nobody speaks the langauge, and given that it is not even the the language of Jesus or the early Christians? It would seem to me that if you really want to adhere to tradition for the sake of tradition then we should go back to the beginning and speak Greek during Mass, not Latin.

I know that Joe doesn't have an issue with me taking this up, so I'm going to respond.

I have created a comparison chart.  And it is someplace on the site.  I did it about 8 years ago.

Where does the Novus Ordo go too far?  Well, the biggest issue is that the reformers changed the offertory.  That is huge.  I mean huge.  Theologically speaking it changes how we approach the Mass of the Faithful/Liturgy of the Eucharist.  Secondly, removing the force of law from the liturgical action, practically speaking is another big issue.  When the language from "must" to "should;" That is a big move theologically and practically.  Also, another big issue are the various translations.  The level of inaccuracy is catastrophic.  The Vatican has taken steps in the last few years to remedy this, but it is still does not convey the message that the intended language does, both for the priest and the faithful.  Also, the change in focus of the Mass, from a primarily vertical motion to a horizontal motion, theologically is very troublesome.

With regard to Latin, Latin remains the official language of the Church.  It really isn't up for discussion.  The use of the vernacular was an indult that was so abused that it became (practically) normative.  This is not what the Council Fathers intended nor did they support it.  Read what Sacrosanctum Concilium has to say (Articles 36, 54, 63 and 101).  You can also search me and the SC on the site.  I've spoken about this before.  While many, including yourself say "so what's the big deal,"  it is this.   Latin makes the Sacrifice universal and consistent.  One doesn't have to fear that he will not understand the language (or parts of it) regardless of where he is in the world.  Also, the Mass is not verbalized for our benefit primarily, but God's.  It shouldn't matter that Mass is in Latin.  And we, the faithful are charged with knowing enough to make the responses.  If you so choose to follow along, there are bilingual missals available; Latin one side, the vernacular on the other.  We are a Church of obedience.  We are defined by our love of God and doing His will.  The Church still determines that Latin is the official language, therefore, we should be advocating (as a matter of obedience and humility) that the language isn't directed toward the faithful, but rather toward God.  For how does the beginning of the Roman Canon start?  That is a big clue.

And incidentally, your comment to me about my attitude with regard to the fact that I know that to some I am rigid and I'm okay with that:  Matthew 10:14

[Cam42]

Comparison between Novus Ordo and TLM

[Peace]

Hey Cam42. Thanks for your comment.

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

I know that Joe doesn't have an issue with me taking this up, so I'm going to respond.

I have created a comparison chart.  And it is someplace on the site.  I did it about 8 years ago.

Thanks. Although I am having trouble finding it. Is it a comparison chart between the NO and the EF? Or is it a comparison chart between the NO and Sacrosanctum Concilium? The latter, I believe, is what was being discussed.

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

Where does the Novus Ordo go too far?  Well, the biggest issue is that the reformers changed the offertory.  That is huge.  I mean huge.  Theologically speaking it changes how we approach the Mass of the Faithful/Liturgy of the Eucharist.  

What specific change(s) to the offertory do you have in mind and why are they bad, in your opinion?

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

Secondly, removing the force of law from the liturgical action, practically speaking is another big issue.  When the language from "must" to "should;" That is a big move theologically and practically.  

I don't see why some degree of flexibility is a bad thing. Again, I do not see why there needs to be a rule that much be rigidly applied down to the letter for in every parish around the world. Adding some variation to accommodate the local culture is a good thing, in my humble opinion.

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

Also, another big issue are the various translations.  The level of inaccuracy is catastrophic.  The Vatican has taken steps in the last few years to remedy this, but it is still does not convey the message that the intended language does, both for the priest and the faithful.  

Hearing the Mass in a dead language that almost nobody understands does not convey much. Same with the Vulgate I think. I get a whole lot more comprehension out of an imperfect English translation than I do out of trying to read the Bible in Chinese, Greek, or Latin.

That is one of the reasons why the Church allows the use of the vernacular, is it not?

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

Also, the change in focus of the Mass, from a primarily vertical motion to a horizontal motion, theologically is very troublesome.

The NO does not appear primarily horizontal to me. Its not like the whole Mass is a big how-do-you-do among the laity. Other than the sign of Peace I have very little personal interaction with the other people attending Mass.

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

With regard to Latin, Latin remains the official language of the Church.  It really isn't up for discussion.  

Exactly what is not up for discussion? Latin is the official language of the Church today. It may not be tomorrow. And perhaps there are people within the hierarchy of the Church who are discussing it. We certainly can.

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

The use of the vernacular was an indult that was so abused that it became (practically) normative.  This is not what the Council Fathers intended nor did they support it.  Read what Sacrosanctum Concilium has to say (Articles 36, 54, 63 and 101).  

Thanks. I do not see anything in the document about the vernacular being an insult that was being abused. The document says "But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters."

That indicates to me that the people who wrote the document thought that the use of the vernacular was a good thing, rather than a concession. The document says the the use of the mother tongue (the vernacular) may be of great advantage to the people.

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

You can also search me and the SC on the site.  I've spoken about this before.  While many, including yourself say "so what's the big deal,"  it is this.   Latin makes the Sacrifice universal and consistent.  One doesn't have to fear that he will not understand the language (or parts of it) regardless of where he is in the world.  

There is benefit to having a universal language. But why not make it a language that people actually speak? Latin was the commonly spoken language among Christians of yesterday. Now Latin is the commonly spoken language of nobody. And very few people have the time or resources to learn a dead language. I think you wrote that you studied it for 15 years. If you absolutely must have 1 single language in every Church for all time why not go with English or Spanish?

Again - if you were to choose the universal language based on tradition, there is seemingly no traditional reason to use Latin over Greek or Amharic/Hebrew. Those were the languages that the scriptures were written in and the primary languages of the very first Christians.

Let's say that non-Catholic were to wander into a Catholic Mass one day, such as I once did. I would be willing to bet that the person would get much more understanding out of it if the Mass were in the language that he speaks than in a language that nobody speaks. . .

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

Also, the Mass is not verbalized for our benefit primarily, but God's.  

Sure. But luckily for us God understands both Latin an English. I am not sure if he has vocalized a preference.

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

It shouldn't matter that Mass is in Latin.  And we, the faithful are charged with knowing enough to make the responses.  If you so choose to follow along, there are bilingual missals available; Latin one side, the vernacular on the other.  We are a Church of obedience.  We are defined by our love of God and doing His will.  The Church still determines that Latin is the official language, therefore, we should be advocating (as a matter of obedience and humility) that the language isn't directed toward the faithful, but rather toward God.  For how does the beginning of the Roman Canon start?  That is a big clue.

Again - God understands both languages. It is not as though Latin is directed towards God and English is not directed towards God. As for the obedience card - I don't really think that works because the Church explicitly allows (and some might say even encourages) the use of the vernacular during Mass.

And if you really want to apply that type of logic, then if you can find a Latin NO then you should be attending the NO rather than the EF, because the church has indicated that the NO is the normative form of the Mass to be conducted in parishes today, while She still allows for the EF.

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

And incidentally, your comment to me about my attitude with regard to the fact that I know that to some I am rigid and I'm okay with that:  Matthew 10:14

I wasn't aware that you were one of the 12 disciples, but perhaps I missed that verse. But regardless, if you want to try construe that verse to indicate that it is acceptable to not care when someone has misunderstood you, be my guest. I think you can find many examples in the Bible where Jesus corrects people who misunderstood him. It does you, me, the Church, or non-Catholics any good for someone to walk away with the understanding that you are hateful, when you could have explained why that is not the case.

P.S. I would doubt that there are even very many clergy who find use in Latin. According to this link, there are only about 200 priests on the Earth who speak it fluently and only a few Cardinals. And from the article it appears that most Church documents are first written in another language, and then translated back into Latin by a special team at the Vatican.

http://www.lastampa.it/2015/03/30/vaticaninsider/eng/news/the-us-priest-who-translates-the-popes-tweets-into-latin-VAX8pNwOSazpBrG3tJrM7O/pagina.html

So what then exactly is the point for all of us to be speaking Latin at Mass?

Sorry. At this point I just don't agree with you. And I hope you believe me when I say that disagreement is not because of some deep-seated dislike I have of you, which I do not have.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Here's my general difficulty with how  the Novus Ordo is done. When I go to the NO I feel like its structured for us. The priest is facing us. The language is as simple as you can make it. Its all oriented to helping us understand what's going on.. and we understand the words but do we see the Sacrifice? If we don't know anything about the Mass, we might miss that. We are reverent if we bring reverence to it. That's what I think people mean by it being horizontal at times. Its not like how it would be if you take the TLM and just add more words for the laity and even include some more vernacular. The position of the altar and all the 'indults' affect it very much. As I understand these are post V2 additions. But the language I think is too simplified at times especially if its gender neutral that bothers me. 

It is less horizontal if done a certain way - with a certain gravity, maybe ad orientem, etc. But when I go to the TLM, I am before a Sacrifice that will happen whether I'm there or not, whether I agree or understand it or not. The holiness and mystery of it is very perceptible and even the first time I went without a missal, I understood more about what the Mass is than an my home parish, just because of the form. It didn't try to help me understand by simplifying itself. It just was, in all its fullness, and that's what most imprerssed me. I understood from it that the main purpose of the Mass is to offer the Sacrifice to God. It was the Holy Trinity and the priest and we were somehow drawn into it. To me, the closer the NO is to this way the better. I remember Pope Benedict spoke about the EF informing the OF. If we had ad orientem, more Latin, chant,alrar rails etc, that would all help and it would in fact be closer to what the original documents said.

I hope this isn't an overly harsh critique because I do believe the NO is valid... And the priests around where I've lived say it well. But all the indults and things that became popular, make a big 'horizontal' impression even with that. The times I've seen them not used that helped a lot. 

The TLM does not give a horizontal impression and all the extra prayers help to enter it more deeply. To be honest when I come to Mass I don't want it to be about gathering etc, I come to worship God, and the spiritual union in Communion with the other Catholics is more meaningful than the songs that talk about coming together. Just my perspective .. I'm not saying its invalid. I'm just trying to answer the question more deeply of where I would go if there weren't liturgical abuses. I know of many parishes with no abuses but I'd still choose the TLM. It just really lifts the mind and heart to God and its like something not of the world. The more worldly sounding music we add, the more we try to be 'relevant' etc, the more we lose the sense of what it is especially if we don't know. If it was having the laity say more responses and such things, it wouldn't have this effect. But many many more additions were made. 

Edited January 26, 2016 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

Some might say... Is there anything wrong with helping the people understand the Mass? And with more exterior participation? I think just adding more responses for the laity is one thing but when we go further and the Mass is simplified for the uncatechized people in the pews, it seems to lose something. Certain things about the Mass aren't communicated well in a didactic way, I think. Also I think that teaching about itself is not the primary purpose of the Mass. We can learn in catechism class.. But the Mass is an act of worship. I understand many today are not catechized. I just wonder if we've gone too far.. Maybe only some things could have been added to draw people into the Mass, not so much. And when we simplify so much, I wonder if the uncatechized people even understand what the Mass is despite understanding all the words. I know its not up to me. I accept the Mass as valid in submission to the Church. But many of these changes just happened over time or were indults - i think the NO could easily be done without them and not all priests use them. 

Personally I learned more about what it is just being at very reverent liturgies. I could be wrong... Just what I've always thought as a convert coming in. I noticed the more the NO approaches the TLM the more it helps to worship. 

I just also really appreciate more silence. In Novus Ordo it often feels rushed and there's less time to pray. Maybe if the music was slower (like chant) and if there were more times of silence around the Communion time that would help a lot. 

Edited January 26, 2016 by MarysLittleFlower

[Credo in Deum]

19 hours ago, Peace said:

 

Hearing the Mass in a dead language that almost nobody understands does not convey much. Same with the Vulgate I think. I get a whole lot more comprehension out of an imperfect English translation than I do out of trying to read the Bible in Chinese, Greek, or Latin.

That is one of the reasons why the Church allows the use of the vernacular, is it not?

The NO does not appear primarily horizontal to me. Its not like the whole Mass is a big how-do-you-do among the laity. Other than the sign of Peace I have very little personal interaction with the other people attending Mass.

Exactly what is not up for discussion? Latin is the official language of the Church today. It may not be tomorrow. And perhaps there are people within the hierarchy of the Church who are discussing it. We certainly can.

Thanks. I do not see anything in the document about the vernacular being an insult that was being abused. The document says "But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters."

That indicates to me that the people who wrote the document thought that the use of the vernacular was a good thing, rather than a concession. The document says the the use of the mother tongue (the vernacular) may be of great advantage to the people.

There is benefit to having a universal language. But why not make it a language that people actually speak? Latin was the commonly spoken language among Christians of yesterday. Now Latin is the commonly spoken language of nobody. And very few people have the time or resources to learn a dead language. I think you wrote that you studied it for 15 years. If you absolutely must have 1 single language in every Church for all time why not go with English or Spanish?

Again - if you were to choose the universal language based on tradition, there is seemingly no traditional reason to use Latin over Greek or Amharic/Hebrew. Those were the languages that the scriptures were written in and the primary languages of the very first Christians.

Let's say that non-Catholic were to wander into a Catholic Mass one day, such as I once did. I would be willing to bet that the person would get much more understanding out of it if the Mass were in the language that he speaks than in a language that nobody speaks. . .

Sure. But luckily for us God understands both Latin an English. I am not sure if he has vocalized a preference.

Again - God understands both languages. It is not as though Latin is directed towards God and English is not directed towards God. As for the obedience card - I don't really think that works because the Church explicitly allows (and some might say even encourages) the use of the vernacular during Mass.

And if you really want to apply that type of logic, then if you can find a Latin NO then you should be attending the NO rather than the EF, because the church has indicated that the NO is the normative form of the Mass to be conducted in parishes today, while She still allows for the EF.

I wasn't aware that you were one of the 12 disciples, but perhaps I missed that verse. But regardless, if you want to try construe that verse to indicate that it is acceptable to not care when someone has misunderstood you, be my guest. I think you can find many examples in the Bible where Jesus corrects people who misunderstood him. It does you, me, the Church, or non-Catholics any good for someone to walk away with the understanding that you are hateful, when you could have explained why that is not the case.

P.S. I would doubt that there are even very many clergy who find use in Latin. According to this link, there are only about 200 priests on the Earth who speak it fluently and only a few Cardinals. And from the article it appears that most Church documents are first written in another language, and then translated back into Latin by a special team at the Vatican.

http://www.lastampa.it/2015/03/30/vaticaninsider/eng/news/the-us-priest-who-translates-the-popes-tweets-into-latin-VAX8pNwOSazpBrG3tJrM7O/pagina.html

So what then exactly is the point for all of us to be speaking Latin at Mass?

Sorry. At this point I just don't agree with you. And I hope you believe me when I say that disagreement is not because of some deep-seated dislike I have of you, which I do not have.

Here is a video regarding the importance of Latin in the Church and what the Church's position is on Latin. Spoiler alert, it's not in favor of treating Latin lightly and it will show the Church has done everything authoritatively, document wise, it can possibly do to stress the necessity and importance of Latin in the Church. Latin's role in the Church is so great that to remove it would be to remove one of the pillars of the Church. 

God through the Church has vocalized His preference and it is Latin.  We have ignored His preference. 

Edited January 26, 2016 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

4 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Here's my general difficulty with how  the Novus Ordo is done. When I go to the NO I feel like its structured for us. The priest is facing us. The language is as simple as you can make it. Its all oriented to helping us understand what's going on.. and we understand the words but do we see the Sacrifice? If we don't know anything about the Mass, we might miss that. We are reverent if we bring reverence to it. That's what I think people mean by it being horizontal at times. Its not like how it would be if you take the TLM and just add more words for the laity and even include some more vernacular. The position of the altar and all the 'indults' affect it very much. As I understand these are post V2 additions. But the language I think is too simplified at times especially if its gender neutral that bothers me. 

Hey pal. As you may know the sacrificial aspect of the Mass is a certain favorite topic of mine, as I have posted a few threads on it here. Actually, I became aware that it was a sacrifice in the NO, before I was Catholic. That is because I actually listened to the words being spoken by the priest, which make it very clear that a sacrifice is actually going on if you listen to them. If I had attended it in a language that I did not speak, I may not have really understood what was going on. At least from my perspective, if you just look at what is going on visually, I don't think you have any way of knowing that it is a sacrifice.

I am not really sure if the NO is made simpler for the laity though. I mean, from my perspective, one does not really need do much in the TLM except show up and pray (not that there is anything wrong with that, of course). Wouldn't the folks of yesteryear just show up and pray a Rosary through the Mass? The NO seems to be a bit less "user friendly" if you will in that it requires more active participation from the laity. It is done in a language we can speak, so it is easier from that standpoint.

Generally speaking I don't see what is wrong with orienting the Mass so that people understand it. I mean, from a certain standpoint this is why Jesus was incarnated, I would think. For us to know and understand the truth. And He spent plenty of his time on Earth explaining things to us for our understanding. Although the Mass is worship, I think it is ultimately something that Jesus does for us, for our benefit . . .

Stuff like the orientation of the priest, etc. don't really bother me too much. The Church has approved that and I trust Her judgment on that matter. I suppose I don't feel like one form is more respectful than another form, but if I really felt that way I would attend the form that I thought was more respectful. So I can understand your choice from that perspective. But I think it comes down to one person's personal preference or perception as to what is reverent or not reverent. I don't think that one is objectively any more respectful than the other. They are simply different.

I mean, I think that not only with the NO, you could do the same thing with many other rites. You could compare the TLM with Eastern Rites or many of the various rites around the world and find plenty of differences with the TLM. Google the Syro Malabar Rite for example. . . If you start making the TLM the standard by which everything else is judged I think you ultimately end up with the conclusion that people who attend the TLM are more respectful of God than all the other numerous Catholics around the world. Is that really the case? I think you end up imposing your own personal preferences or cultural standards on all other Catholics. . .

4 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

It is less horizontal if done a certain way - with a certain gravity, maybe ad orientem, etc. But when I go to the TLM, I am before a Sacrifice that will happen whether I'm there or not, whether I agree or understand it or not. The holiness and mystery of it is very perceptible and even the first time I went without a missal, I understood more about what the Mass is than an my home parish, just because of the form. It didn't try to help me understand by simplifying itself. It just was, in all its fullness, and that's what most imprerssed me. I understood from it that the main purpose of the Mass is to offer the Sacrifice to God. It was the Holy Trinity and the priest and we were somehow drawn into it. To me, the closer the NO is to this way the better. I remember Pope Benedict spoke about the EF informing the OF. If we had ad orientem, more Latin, chant,alrar rails etc, that would all help and it would in fact be closer to what the original documents said.

That's cool. If all of the incense and stuff helps bring your attention attention to the reality of what is going on at the altar, then it is a good think that you attend the TLM I think. But the objectively reality of what goes on at the altar is the same, regardless of whether you have that stuff. I can't really say that having the priest face a certain direction or having incense made it seem more holy or mysterious to me, but if that does bring you to a fuller spiritual awareness or connection to what is going on at the altar, I can understand why you would prefer the TLM. I guess I am saying that just because that happens to be your experience, does not mean that must be the same experience for everyone else. I don't think one is objectively better than the other.

4 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I hope this isn't an overly harsh critique because I do believe the NO is valid... And the priests around where I've lived say it well. But all the indults and things that became popular, make a big 'horizontal' impression even with that. The times I've seen them not used that helped a lot. 

The TLM does not give a horizontal impression and all the extra prayers help to enter it more deeply. To be honest when I come to Mass I don't want it to be about gathering etc, I come to worship God, and the spiritual union in Communion with the other Catholics is more meaningful than the songs that talk about coming together. Just my perspective .. I'm not saying its invalid. I'm just trying to answer the question more deeply of where I would go if there weren't liturgical abuses. I know of many parishes with no abuses but I'd still choose the TLM. It just really lifts the mind and heart to God and its like something not of the world. The more worldly sounding music we add, the more we try to be 'relevant' etc, the more we lose the sense of what it is especially if we don't know. If it was having the laity say more responses and such things, it wouldn't have this effect. But many many more additions were made. 

That's cool. I can understand why you prefer the TLM. If that were my experience with it too maybe I might prefer it. Or maybe one day I will prefer it. Every once in a while I go to a major African American church here in DC. They have a full gospel choir that is really amesome, and they sing the various parts of the Mass and some other worship songs. They are really joyful and they REALLY lift their voices to the heavens, if you will. At least for me when I go there, sometimes I get like this almost supernatural kind of sense, like Heaven and Earth have literally come together for a moment (which I think is the objective reality). Like we are no longer just folks in a pew. Perhaps that is something like what the TLM does for you.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the TLM need not be the only means by which one's heart and mind is lifted to God. . .

So endeth my ramble.

[BG45]

On 1/25/2016, 12:16:16, Cam42 said:

  Matthew 10:14

Funny, that's the same verse I quoted on another forum in my profile, when I left, after you told me "Understanding is not required, only obedience" in regards to a question I had about the faith.  Forget the question now, but the response has remained with me as exactly how not to respond to someone going through a Dark Night of the Soul.

On 1/23/2016, 1:14:21, bardegaulois said:

When I lived elsewhere, I heard a Novus Ordo Mass daily at an old Polish parish. There were confessions available before every Mass, the Rosary was said before Mass, and the Angelus was prayed afterwards. An organist and choir were there daily, often singing Gregorian propers, and most of the sung parts of the Mass were in Latin (Greek, in the case of the Kyrie) as well. On most days there were at least five, if not at least ten altar boys, and there were always incense and torchbearers. At least 50 people heard this Mass even on ferial days, and Solemn High Masses were occasional (a young parishioner was an FSSP seminarian). When I left, people were debating whether ad orientem celebration would be more appropriate, but in any case, the altar arrangement used by Pope Benedict was common.

While attending there, I never wanted for reverence in liturgy. Had I stayed there, I might never have desired to go full 1962-missal. In fact, my first reaction after hearing the Mass there for the first time was, "This actually resembles Roman Catholicism!" But I moved and couldn't find aught.similar so I started hearing the Traditional Latin Mass. As I said, in the face of banal and worldly liturgical practice, the cat of the Traditional Latin rite is out of the bag, and it has become the go-to celebration for those desiring more reverent liturgy. The way matters have developed, I don't believe it will give way easily.

Part of me ponders if you lived in the part of the Midwest around where I do now, or if this is simply a thing done by Polish priests who are doing their work in America.  I think it's the Marian Fathers from Poland who run a parish in town here, that pretty much do everything you just mentioned.  Doing the rosary before Mass, a Hail Mary and St. Michael Prayer included in the course of the Mass, Angelus afterwards.  Daily confessions too on 6/7 days of the week. 

[Peace]

4 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Here is a video regarding the importance of Latin in the Church and what the Church's position is on Latin. Spoiler alert, it's not in favor of treating Latin lightly and it will show the Church has done everything authoritatively, document wise, it can possibly do to stress the necessity and importance of Latin in the Church. Latin's role in the Church is so great that to remove it would be to remove one of the pillars of the Church. 

God through the Church has vocalized His preference and it is Latin.  We have ignored His preference. 

Thanks. I will try to watch the video when I have a chance. How is that the Church's position on Latin when She explicitly authorizes the local language and said that it may have advantages for the laity? How is Latin necessary when the Church explicitly authorizes Mass to be conducted in languages other than Latin?

And Latin is a pillar of the Church? I dunno about all that. Some of the apostles did not even speak Latin. Did Jesus speak Latin? None of the sacred scriptures were written in Latin.

And God really has a preference for Latin? Jesus and the apostles could have been born in Rome, you know. It's a tough sell. What can I say?

But perhaps your video answers all of that?

Edited January 26, 2016 by Peace

[Credo in Deum]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Thanks. I will try to watch the video when I have a chance. How is that the Church's position on Latin when She explicitly authorizes the local language and said that it may have advantages for the laity? How is Latin necessary when the Church explicitly authorizes Mass to be conducted in languages other than Latin?

And Latin is a pillar of the Church? I dunno about all that. Some of the apostles did not even speak Latin. None of the sacred scriptures were written in Latin.

And God really has a preference for Latin? Jesus and the apostles could have been born in Rome, you know. It's a tough sell. What can I say?

But perhaps your video answers all of that?

The video does answer those questions. 

I hope you get the time to watch it and take it seriously. 

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, BG45 said:

Funny, that's the same verse I quoted on another forum in my profile, when I left, after you told me "Understanding is not required, only obedience" in regards to a question I had about the faith.  Forget the question now, but the response has remained with me as exactly how not to respond to someone going through a Dark Night of the Soul.

Part of me ponders if you lived in the part of the Midwest around where I do now, or if this is simply a thing done by Polish priests who are doing their work in America.  I think it's the Marian Fathers from Poland who run a parish in town here, that pretty much do everything you just mentioned.  Doing the rosary before Mass, a Hail Mary and St. Michael Prayer included in the course of the Mass, Angelus afterwards.  Daily confessions too on 6/7 days of the week. 

One parish where I attend Mass here in VA is pretty similar. Confession 7 days a week. I have gone in there at like 7:30 AM on a Saturday morning and there is a group of 25 people saying the Rosary . . .

[BG45]

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

One parish where I attend Mass here in VA is pretty similar. Confession 7 days a week. I have gone in there at like 7:30 AM on a Saturday morning and there is a group of 25 people saying the Rosary . . .

That's amesome!    And kinda like, "wow", because first it's that many, and second, it's early on a Saturday morning.  Not gonna pry for privacy's sake, but guessing it isn't St. Leo the Great (because a friend has gone there before). 

[Amppax]

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

Thanks. I will try to watch the video when I have a chance. How is that the Church's position on Latin when She explicitly authorizes the local language and said that it may have advantages for the laity? How is Latin necessary when the Church explicitly authorizes Mass to be conducted in languages other than Latin?

And Latin is a pillar of the Church? I dunno about all that. Some of the apostles did not even speak Latin. Did Jesus speak Latin? None of the sacred scriptures were written in Latin.

And God really has a preference for Latin? Jesus and the apostles could have been born in Rome, you know. It's a tough sell. What can I say?

But perhaps your video answers all of that?

Well, SC pretty clearly states that Latin is to be preserved in the Roman Rite (#36). Vernacular liturgy is the exception, though one with is admittedly described as potentially beneficial. It seems clear to me that Latin has not, for the most part, been preserved in the Roman rite. 

Dang it, I just finished telling myself I wasn't getting into this.

[Credo in Deum]

Veterum Sapientia

By Pope John XXIII

Some note worthy snippets 

A primary place

But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.

And since in God's special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire -- and that for so many centuries -- it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See.3 Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.

The nature of Latin

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin for mal structure. Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity"4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws."5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the "knowledge and use of this language," so intimately bound up with the Church's life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church's nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time ... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7

Universal

Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"9 of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

Immutable

Furthermore, the Church's language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure ... of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church's teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

Educational value of Latin

There can be no doubt as to the formative and educational value either of the language of the Romans or of great literature generally. It is a most effective training for the pliant minds of youth. It exercises, matures and perfects the principal faculties of mind and spirit. It sharpens the wits and gives keenness of judgment. It helps the young mind to grasp things accurately and develop a true sense of values. It is also a means for teaching highly intelligent thought and speech.

A natural result

It will be quite clear from these considerations why the Roman Pontiffs have so often extolled the excellence and importance of Latin, and why they have prescribed its study and use by the secular and regular clergy, forecasting the dangers that would result from its neglect.

A resolve to uphold Latin

And We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons -- the same as those which prompted Our Predecessors and provincial synods13 -- are fully determined to restore this language to its position of honor, and to do all We can to promote its study and use. The employment of Latin has recently been contested in many quarters, and many are asking what the mind of the Apostolic See is in this matter. We have therefore decided to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored.

http://www.adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

4 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Well, SC pretty clearly states that Latin is to be preserved in the Roman Rite (#36). Vernacular liturgy is the exception, though one with is admittedly described as potentially beneficial. It seems clear to me that Latin has not, for the most part, been preserved in the Roman rite. 

Dang it, I just finished telling myself I wasn't getting into this.

Bingo. An all vernacular Mass was never the intention of desire of the Church.  Furthermore I think people are confusing permission with what the Church desires.  The Church permits us to only fast during times she has obligated throughout the year.  The Church desires we will see the benefits in fast and do it more than just the prescribed times.

We have failed the Church both by not preserving Latin and by not demanding it be restored back to its rightful place.