FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Is the New Mass in se wrong
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
<<
In theory, I think that the celebration of the Novus Ordo could be acceptable, that is, if it were celebrated as much like the Traditional Latin Mass as possible, up to and including the priest keeping his thumbs and index fingers joined from the Consecration to the ablutions.

That said, the Novus Ordo Mass is not a platonic form, and in real life, it usually comes with practices that I could never participate in without violating the dictates of my conscience. I am thinking here of things like the reception of holy Communion in the hand and translations which deliberately change the words of the Mass. Now, gglass, I have often heard you speaking about the necessity of obeying one's conscience, so you, of all people, should understand why I (and others) cannot accept these practices.
>>

I had seen abusive masses in the sixties, and I am sure, that the existent liberal liturgical movement w/o the XXI Ecumenical council would allow abuses too. There is nothing in the TLM, a mystical power, which would prevent this abuses.

The vernacular hymns in Germany, Austria and Hungary were present w/o any control from the Church since the XVI Century, some of them were quite silly even involving protestant attitudes

The dialogue masses where people recited prayers of the Holy Mass in translation w/o any control from the hierarchy, was present since the twenties, and those dialogue masses made the Holy Mass different from parish to parish, just like the New Mass is

There was guitar mass in the early sixties, w/o any approval from the hierarchy.

There is no mystical power in the TLM which would prevent abuses, the abuses come not form the New Mass, but from the spirit of people who deny the authority of the institutional Church. Our pope, on that time professor Ratzinger felt relived in 1970, that at least there is some regulation for how to celebrate the mass (he was wrong, the New Mass did not brought the regulation).

The problem is not with the external form, the problem is with the spirit of the people: do they belive that the hierarchy and only the hierarchy is the competent regulator, or (from either side) they deny this power.   
Ultimately, yes - the problem is in the spirit of those who insist on disobedience and on placating themselves instead of glorifying God exclusively during the liturgy.

I was blessed enough to be brought up in a very conservative parish where only the Ordinary Form was used. Otherwise, things were as traditional as possible; sacred art was not removed (and some was eventually added), the altar rail was not removed, the NO altar was beautifully made and matched the reredos perfectly, altar servers remained male till a few years ago and always used patens during Communion, priests and servers genuflected each time they crossed the tabernacle, the old confessionals remained and weren't replaced with modern ones that allow for face-to-face confessions as well as behind-the-screen style, the organ was used at every Mass and traditional hymns were always used (no guitars or woodwind or tambourines or hand-clapping), no assuming of the orans position by the laity during Mass (which I suppose owes a lot to the heavily Polish immigrant presence there), no leftist sermons from the pulpit, no questionable theology during Mass (the old Polish priests during my time there would even use Latin, at least during the final prayers), benediction and holy hours continued, confession was always available before Mass (Saturday evening, anyway), the reredos remained and was not altered (the crucifix stayed put, etc) - I could probably find twice as many examples if I tried hard enough to think back.

But I realize this is only my story, and not everyone is lucky enough to grow up like this if they have to grow up in or attend a NO parish. Where I live now, finding a Catholic church that manages 25% of what my home parish did is a very difficult task; far too many churches look like banks or libraries and a heavily Protestant spirit of "how can this appeal to me and my human sensibilities?" pervades so very much out here. For the so-called "Bible belt", there is a lot of humanism and modernism in most all churches out here, Catholic ones included. So yes, the flesh is weak but the spirit is weaker in all too many places.

However, the spirit is shaped by what we take in through our senses. That's why art and aesthetics are so important in the secular world - and why all of our once-taken-for-granted Catholic traditions are essentially important at all times, especially now. Those old forms shaped our spirits, gave order and beauty to our sense of the spiritual, imparted the proper sense of the holy to us. That old parish I grew up in had a terrific and wonderful impact on my earliest impressions of the Faith and of God; if I were brought up in some wannabe-Unitarian Universalist church with felt banners and no outward and clear displays of reverence, I might not have such a sense today, unless the hard heart I was given by way of such poor examples was touched by God.

That's why the TLM is so important because the rubrics of it do require more outward displays of reverence, and outward displays help shape the inner disposition. No, not all the time, since human beings are not that inherently good or noble - our sinful natures prevent us from always responding as we ought to the Lord and His Church. However, there's no arguing that, when modernism or other heresies were not infiltrating and affecting the Church, the strict rubrics of the Tridentine Mass helped to shape and direct spiritual development, much like a shepherd's stout crook directs and guides his sheep in the way they must go.

Sure, the Ordinary Form can be said with much reverence - again, my personal experience is that such an act is perfectly possible. However, one must go above and beyond the rubrics of the OF to achieve this; if those responsible drop the ball, they won't offer the proper outward displays of reverence they must, and souls will not be as effectively shaped or directed. This is why I support not just the more widespread use of the Tridentine Mass, but also a much stricter celebration of the Ordinary Form as well, above and beyond what the OF's rubrics call for.

A priest who doesn't care can still celebrate the TLM and not appear to be anything less than reverent, unless he disobeys the rubrics. A priest who doesn't care will clearly be seen as such when he celebrates the OF, since the OF requires him to do less and gives him more wiggle room to drop the ball. The TLM practically glues the ball in the priest's hand, if you follow me. That's why the TLM has a marked advantage over the OF.
(08-10-2010, 09:30 AM)Lycorth Wrote: [ -> ]That's why the TLM is so important because the rubrics of it do require more outward displays of reverence, and outward displays help shape the inner disposition. No, not all the time, since human beings are not that inherently good or noble - our sinful natures prevent us from always responding as we ought to the Lord and His Church. However, there's no arguing that, when modernism or other heresies were not infiltrating and affecting the Church, the strict rubrics of the Tridentine Mass helped to shape and direct spiritual development, much like a shepherd's stout crook directs and guides his sheep in the way they must go.

My conclusion for this is, that instead of rejecting the New Mass, as is, one should work to keep the New Mass along the approved rubrics. 

The Tridentine Mass in itself helps only because it is exception, the extraordinary form, so the mainstream attack is not against the Tridentine Mass but against the more populous and more frequent New Masses.

Once again: In Hungary until the break of the Communism there were only New Masses, but the were reverent and very close to the traditional masses. For me the basic difference was that only those people went to communion, less than half of the total present, who also went to confession at least monthly. There was confession before every mass, and extra time for First Friday. Together with that everyone who received communion was kneeling at the bars of the altar, and received the Holy Eucharist to tongue, in the species of the bread only.

I was astonished, that when I came here everybody, without exception went to communion, and there was opportunity to confession only Saturday morning for about an hour. This is not natural; change, and has nothing to do with the rubrics of the New Mass, simply redefines the concept of the sin and reverence toward the Eucharist. If one's soul is not expected to be cleaned before communion, why can't one receive it to his hands? As far as I was able to understand the percentile of those who received communion w/o frequent confession increased in the US before 1970, so that is not the result of the New Mass, that is the result of negative catechesis against the holiness (set aside nature) of the Eucharist. The still present and universal Tridentine rite did not prevented this negative catechesis.
(08-10-2010, 11:06 AM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]My conclusion for this is, that instead of rejecting the New Mass, as is, one should work to keep the New Mass along the approved rubrics. 

The Tridentine Mass in itself helps only because it is exception, the extraordinary form, so the mainstream attack is not against the Tridentine Mass but against the more populous and more frequent New Masses.

Once again: In Hungary until the break of the Communism there were only New Masses, but the were reverent and very close to the traditional masses. For me the basic difference was that only those people went to communion, less than half of the total present, who also went to confession at least monthly. There was confession before every mass, and extra time for First Friday. Together with that everyone who received communion was kneeling at the bars of the altar, and received the Holy Eucharist to tongue, in the species of the bread only.

I was astonished, that when I came here everybody, without exception went to communion, and there was opportunity to confession only Saturday morning for about an hour. This is not natural; change, and has nothing to do with the rubrics of the New Mass, simply redefines the concept of the sin and reverence toward the Eucharist. If one's soul is not expected to be cleaned before communion, why can't one receive it to his hands? As far as I was able to understand the percentile of those who received communion w/o frequent confession increased in the US before 1970, so that is not the result of the New Mass, that is the result of negative catechesis against the holiness (set aside nature) of the Eucharist. The still present and universal Tridentine rite did not prevented this negative catechesis.

The TLM still has the marked advantage of requiring a greater display of reverence, which in most circumstances (if we take all of history into account, not just the '50s and '60s) has a positive impact on the faithful as well as gives a proper representation of the faith. But yes, we must support traditionalism within the New Mass, but over and above what its rubrics call for. The OF's rubrics simply don't require the outward displays of reverence necessary to help set a good example for other Catholics and most importantly, to worship the Lord in the most fitting possible manner.

This is why the Tridentine Mass is a helpful and powerful weapon in the correction of modernist errors, but of course only a proper traditionalist disposition of loyalty and Catholicity can truly bring about change.

In your native Hungary, Catholicism was seen (no doubt, as it was in Poland and elsewhere) as a powerful way to keep oneself holy amidst the evils of communism. In such an environment of conflict, naturally traditionalism will be preferred, so it makes sense that the old priests over there had enough sense to go above and beyond what the New Mass required of them. Contrast that with what you've seen in America, where we take for granted that we can freely attend Mass - most folks don't see what they are losing by rejecting traditions. The Polish immigrants that were so heavily present in my old church - they knew what a great thing they had in the Faith and wanted to be as reverent as they could. Your average American might care a little, but not much, and would be just as happy with guitars and felt banners and not going to confession at all but not turning down a free wafer at Mass.

It is poor catechesis in all cases, be it abuses during OF masses or rejecting the Tridentine Mass or what have you. What we need to do now is resurrect everything that supports the Faith and best encourages us in it, be it the TLM as well as a much more strict and traditional attitude during the OF Mass, as well as getting it through to people that a devout, loyal, and traditional attitude must be restored.