For Those of You Who Think Traditionalism is the Answer....

[Gnarwhal]

A few things....

First of all, it's not a popularity contest. What if I were to tell you that a giant bounce house Mass would attract ten times more parishioners? We could worship while bouncing up and down. The kiddies would love it! The parents might like it! But is it what the Lord deserves? We could have dress up days and all come dressed like our favorite Beatle to Mass. I'm sure loons from all over would eat it up. But is it reverent and does the Lord deserve trendy hipster attempts at popularity and filling bums in pews?

Vatican II, which I'm not really much of a fan of, was put on steroids by many left-leaning priests and interpreted in a far more broad way than intended. Many if not most credible bishops and cardinals say this all the time. The spirit was overtaken by those with no sense of boundaries and appropriateness.

The Latin Mass, as another poster appropriately pointed out is NOT about the Latin! Personally, I like some of the Latin responses, but would prefer English. What do I like?

The priest facing the altar rather than the people
Incense
Communion on the tongue
No happy-clappy Baptisty stuff
no hand-holding
no massive presence of extraordinary ministers trying to bless my kids
solemnity
piety
beauty

This could be accomplished with English. It's not just the language, it's the whole holistic experience of it that I think most 'traditionalists' hunger for. And like I said, it's not a popularity contest. It's about doing what some feel is what God deserves. So why not allow more traditional expressions?

Another interesting thing to note is that Latin Masses often, depending on the location and peculiarities of the parishioners, can be PACKED! Some Latin Masses are packed to the door with people hungering for the piety of the Tridentine form. I hear that a lot from friends in "real" time and online. There is one up in Fresno that people really get excited about!

This is very well said, and I think the operative words here are "what the Lord deserves". That's what had drawn me to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and that's what drew me to the Catholic Church (after seeing the Latin Mass), is that I felt like it lived up to the majesty of Christ to the best of our human ability.

In times past when I've measured a service (be it Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Evangelical or something else), I tend to liken it to the gifts brought to Christ by the Magi: they brought their best, some of the most valuable items to be given by anyone, to anyone, from anywhere. Gifts worthy of a king. Shouldn't worship be the same? Offering the best we're capable of giving?

Another thing is it seems like it's possible for an English Mass to be equally as reverent and awe inspiring as a Latin Mass, it just depends on the priest.

 

[WarriorAngel]

A few things....

First of all, it's not a popularity contest. What if I were to tell you that a giant bounce house Mass would attract ten times more parishioners? We could worship while bouncing up and down. The kiddies would love it! The parents might like it! But is it what the Lord deserves? We could have dress up days and all come dressed like our favorite Beatle to Mass. I'm sure loons from all over would eat it up. But is it reverent and does the Lord deserve trendy hipster attempts at popularity and filling bums in pews?

Vatican II, which I'm not really much of a fan of, was put on steroids by many left-leaning priests and interpreted in a far more broad way than intended. Many if not most credible bishops and cardinals say this all the time. The spirit was overtaken by those with no sense of boundaries and appropriateness.

The Latin Mass, as another poster appropriately pointed out is NOT about the Latin! Personally, I like some of the Latin responses, but would prefer English. What do I like?

The priest facing the altar rather than the people
Incense
Communion on the tongue
No happy-clappy Baptisty stuff
no hand-holding
no massive presence of extraordinary ministers trying to bless my kids
solemnity
piety
beauty

This could be accomplished with English. It's not just the language, it's the whole holistic experience of it that I think most 'traditionalists' hunger for. And like I said, it's not a popularity contest. It's about doing what some feel is what God deserves. So why not allow more traditional expressions?

Another interesting thing to note is that Latin Masses often, depending on the location and peculiarities of the parishioners, can be PACKED! Some Latin Masses are packed to the door with people hungering for the piety of the Tridentine form. I hear that a lot from friends in "real" time and online. There is one up in Fresno that people really get excited about!

The Church - started the semantics of the Mass we know - during Trent.
Neither East nor West worried about the small things.

Now i could check - and be sure - because i am not sure - but in the older style - say in the catacombs - i dont think the placement of the altar was facing East.

I think i would rather check out the history - and we did learn this style we know today - facing the altar and what not came during Trent.
But to be sure - i think i have to recheck on that. Because i specifically asked when that started - i believe the response was Trent - or maybe shortly before.

Its innovative - compared to the 1st century - but then again during the beginning tenure of the Apostles - they literally celebrated in synagogues.

Things change... its not important to get hung up on stuff that doesnt change the meaning of the sacrament.

I have no real knowledge of how the Apostles did it - although i await for the books by Maria Valtorta to be approved or accepted - in which case - Paul didnt face away from the ppl - he faced the ppl - and the Eucharist was seen by all.

Now excluding any of her works - i have to see if archeology of the altars in the catacombs could give us a clue. But i doubt it.

Each to their own. I am fine either way. Its worshiping Him and receiving Him that matters to me.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Moreover; i dont think the Apostles demanded houses that faced East in the beginning.
I also am not sure if they demanded tables be moved.
They did however; make crosses and hang them in homes over the tables - makeshift altars - according to some archeological finds.

 

[WarriorAngel]

This is very well said, and I think the operative words here are "what the Lord deserves". That's what had drawn me to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and that's what drew me to the Catholic Church (after seeing the Latin Mass), is that I felt like it lived up to the majesty of Christ to the best of our human ability.

In times past when I've measured a service (be it Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Evangelical or something else), I tend to liken it to the gifts brought to Christ by the Magi: they brought their best, some of the most valuable items to be given by anyone, to anyone, from anywhere. Gifts worthy of a king. Shouldn't worship be the same? Offering the best we're capable of giving?

Another thing is it seems like it's possible for an English Mass to be equally as reverent and awe inspiring as a Latin Mass, it just depends on the priest.

Christ deserves our hearts... He seeks out hearts.
That's our gift to Him.

Lukewarm and apathetic hearts - He will spit out. Saltlessness - loses its flavor.

 

[MKJ]

The Church - started the semantics of the Mass we know - during Trent.
Neither East nor West worried about the small things.

Now i could check - and be sure - because i am not sure - but in the older style - say in the catacombs - i dont think the placement of the altar was facing East.

I think i would rather check out the history - and we did learn this style we know today - facing the altar and what not came during Trent.
But to be sure - i think i have to recheck on that. Because i specifically asked when that started - i believe the response was Trent - or maybe shortly before.

Its innovative - compared to the 1st century - but then again during the beginning tenure of the Apostles - they literally celebrated in synagogues.

Things change... its not important to get hung up on stuff that doesnt change the meaning of the sacrament.

I have no real knowledge of how the Apostles did it - although i await for the books by Maria Valtorta to be approved or accepted - in which case - Paul didnt face away from the ppl - he faced the ppl - and the Eucharist was seen by all.

Now excluding any of her works - i have to see if archeology of the altars in the catacombs could give us a clue. But i doubt it.

Each to their own. I am fine either way. Its worshiping Him and receiving Him that matters to me.

There was a thought, in the 1960s and a little before that, that the priest facing East with the altar was not what the early Church did. This was one of the reasons those who created the new style liturgies gave for recommending altars be pulled out and the priest face the congregation.

They were also looking to democratize the mass, and get the congregation more involved.

However, like quite a few of the so called liturgical discoveries of the early 20th century, they were probably making too large of a leap in the conclusions they came to. Many of the ideas that they had, and incorporated into the new liturgies, have seen come under a critical eye.

This is part of what comes of creating wholesale new liturgies with no reference to a living tradition, and of jumping on the band-wagon of scholarly and cultural trends.

It is hard to think of a worse idea in liturgical studies. That is why, after only 50 years, these new liturgies were dated, both stylistically and from an academic point of view.

There still seems to be a real need for liturgical renewal in the Catholic Church. We can see that trying to construct liturgies like a postmodernist has not been very fruitful - perhaps an attempt to do it within the tradition might be more fruitful. A real vernacular version of a traditional liturgy, and some halfway reasonable music and mass settings, might be a good place to start.

 

[mark46]

God seeks our hearts and for us to love one another. As much as wish it to be so, it is not what we do within the Church that makes the most difference (although the sacraments are critically important to our spiritual life). It is how we are Jesus to the world.

Yet so many believe is what God wants and deserves is a certain ritual, a certain set of vestments, a particular orientation of the alter, hymns that meet their individual idea of what God wants.

Christ deserves our hearts... He seeks out hearts.
That's our gift to Him.

Lukewarm and apathetic hearts - He will spit out. Saltlessness - loses its flavor.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is a "can't walk and chew gum" argument. Nobody has said the novus ordo should be abolished for one thing. I simply propose that each parish has one more TRADITIONAL liturgy for people who find that more powerful. And it doesn't have to be in Latin either. What is wrong with that? Keep all the other Masses and let those folks who want the contemporary stuff have it in spades, but also respect people who want the ancient faith. I see that as fair and something for everyone. I'm not saying we should impose my liturgical sensibilities on you nor yours on me, just give people some choice. Fair?

But where I mention the walking and chewing gum part is that you seem to differentiate liturgical correctness/tradition and an open-heart, loving, sincere, caring lifestyle? Why are they mutually exclusive? Take this for example: Charlie goes to a Latin Mass. His wife wears a veil. They worship in the traditional manner. Three days a week he and his wife work in the soup kitchen helping the poor. They give to charity in spades. They loan some down-and-out neighbors money. They don't lie, and they have a smile for anyone they run across. Charlie participates in a sincere prison ministry twice a month. Isn't Charlie walking and chewing gum? Do we have to choose between a traditional, more respectful liturgy and being a good person who shows Christ to his neighbors?

Is the only person who can truly radiate Christ to the world a person who doesn't care about vestments, orientation during worship, and liturgical tradition?

God seeks our hearts and for us to love one another. As much as wish it to be so, it is not what we do within the Church that makes the most difference (although the sacraments are critically important to our spiritual life). It is how we are Jesus to the world.

Yet so many believe is what God wants and deserves is a certain ritual, a certain set of vestments, a particular orientation of the alter, hymns that meet their individual idea of what God wants.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

I think the best thing would be to have both the options available as much as possible, and for those who prefer one to not attack the style of the other.

 

[Alittlelamb]

In the end times many will turn their backs. Many will worship false prophets. Many will be bold and arrogant.

It is never good to downplay or disrespect a fellow religion that believes the same thing as you do!!!

That's insane. How can you rebuke Catholicism but then adapt Evangelism, when they both preach from the same book.

Do not be easily misled children, we are in the lasts days.....

 

[Fantine]

No, of course not. The principal difference I see (don't get on my case) between the TLM and the post-Vatican II Mass isn't linguistic. It goes much deeper than that.

At a TLM, I envision a primitive, demanding Old Testament God who received about 4,000 years worth of blood sacrifices from the Jewish people and thinks that this is the way worship should be....

Even if we're offering Jesus, we're in that sort of primitive, uncivilized mindset.

At a post-Vatican II Mass, I see us sitting around a table with Jesus, our brother, and He is telling us that not only does He love us unconditionally and would willingly die for us, but that this is the model we should follow ourselves--loving one another unconditionally, living a life of service---even though we will never be called to lay down our lives for our friends....

On the one hand, I feel as if I'm being asked to adopt a cave-man mentality.

In the other, I feel I am being inspired and challenged to love as Jesus loved...

And so no, it's not linguistic.

 

[mark46]

I've never known of a Catholic church not having at least one traditional mass, except on OBOB. Perhaps, my definitions are different than yours. I am used to one contemporary, one traditional and one mixed.

While I agree with your conclusions, I disagree with the premise of choice being required. From many of your previous posts, I know that you agree.

BTW, I thought that Vatican II was pretty clear about having mass in the vernacular.

In the end, we probably disagree on what is "traditional". However, we both agree that each church should try to provide masses for those with different liturgical preferences. We are a big tent after all.

This is a "can't walk and chew gum" argument. Nobody has said the novus ordo should be abolished for one thing. I simply propose that each parish has one more TRADITIONAL liturgy for people who find that more powerful. And it doesn't have to be in Latin either. What is wrong with that? Keep all the other Masses and let those folks who want the contemporary stuff have it in spades, but also respect people who want the ancient faith. I see that as fair and something for everyone. I'm not saying we should impose my liturgical sensibilities on you nor yours on me, just give people some choice. Fair?

But where I mention the walking and chewing gum part is that you seem to differentiate liturgical correctness/tradition and an open-heart, loving, sincere, caring lifestyle? Why are they mutually exclusive? Take this for example: Charlie goes to a Latin Mass. His wife wears a veil. They worship in the traditional manner. Three days a week he and his wife work in the soup kitchen helping the poor. They give to charity in spades. They loan some down-and-out neighbors money. They don't lie, and they have a smile for anyone they run across. Charlie participates in a sincere prison ministry twice a month. Isn't Charlie walking and chewing gum? Do we have to choose between a traditional, more respectful liturgy and being a good person who shows Christ to his neighbors?

Is the only person who can truly radiate Christ to the world a person who doesn't care about vestments, orientation during worship, and liturgical tradition?