Support This Website! Shop Here!

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Getting Back to the Mass

Traditionalists are famous for their sacrifices.
People, we are told, will drive hours to attend a Traditional Latin Mass.

Well, often, they make that sacrifice because they don't understand the Mass very well. As one traditionalists told me: "I don't feel like I've been to Mass unless it's the TLM."

Wow - so many errors packed into one little sentence:
  1.  Catholic Faith is reduced to feeling
  2.  Feeling is so screwed up that it cannot detect Christ at a valid Mass
  3.  Implicit assertion that personal feeling is infallible 
  4.  Implicit refusal to acknowledge the validity of the Novus Ordo
  5.  It's all about ME, not about God.
How is this not Protestantism?

And then they wonder why bishops aren't interested in encouraging this attitude.
Yeah, there's a mystery.


Ann said...

The Mass is not entertainment, dynamic preaching, or a social gathering. It is the sacrifice of Calvery made present on the altar where God the Son is present in the consecrated species. If a person thinks that happens only at a TLM then they are living in a very precarious state of denial at the very least and in schism at the worst.

Sean W. said...

I don't think I've ever heard someone say, "I don't feel like I've been to Mass unless it's the TLM." Far be it from me to judge the intentions or the state of their mind of your interlocutor since it is, after all, possible that the sense you attribute to them is in fact the one they intended. But if I heard someone say something like that, I would not instinctively conclude, "This person is questioning the validity of the Pauline order of Mass and the liturgies of the Anglican Ordinariate, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, etc." I would rather think this person is saying, albeit somewhat ineptly, that a spiritual need in them is met at the TLM which is not met at the NO.

I'm sympathetic to that and experience it myself -- even at my parish, where the NO is celebrated reasonably well, I often regret that I am so severed from many of the practices of my ancestors. Among some people there is a certain hunger for continuity and rootedness that can never be satisfied at NO Masses, especially once one is aware of the circumstances surrounding its development. Of course I won't deprive myself of the grace of the Sacraments for that reason, and I primarily attend an NO locally despite a TLM an hour away mainly because of laziness and hatred of driving; I have more than one vice to overcome!

"How is this not Protestantism?"

Well, it doesn't entail rejection of communion with the Holy Father, for one thing, nor profession of any outright heresies that do the job just as well, at least as far as I can tell. At worst it entails a certain defect in the proper ordering of the passions and in judgment.

"And then they wonder why bishops aren't interested in encouraging this attitude."

There really ought to be more patience, charity, and understanding on both sides. Trads must realize that they are, in fact, a pretty radical minority, and catering to their needs is necessarily a low priority on the plate of most bishops. (True, many Catholics who attend NO Masses exclusively are lukewarm -- but the implication that they ought to be deprived of a shot at salvation to cater to a much smaller group of surer faith is just nuts). Bishops, on the other hand, must realize that trads experience genuine alienation from the Church in part because of the unconscionably brutal way which people legitimately attached to the old order of Mass were treated in the wake of the reform. Those "bad old days" may be largely gone now, but even bandaged wounds still need time to fully heal.

Tony said...

Actually we are expected to fully and actively participate in the Mass. It's hard to do when the liturgical dancing girls are traipsing up the aisle, and Fr. Kumbaya is "Johnny Carsoning" his 1000th I'm Ok - You're - Ok homily. Then being subjected to the Jesus is my boyfriend style of music, most possibly played on guitars, drums and tambourines. Fr. Kumbaya changes the words of consecration around to make it relevant, that you're not sure that Jesus is real and present, and if you're looking for the tabernacle, it's down the street and Murphy's Pub, so Jesus doesn't distract from Jesus on the altar.

Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it's an example that many of us have been subjected to. The faithful have a right to liturgy done correctly. That means going by the "cookbook" and reading the black and doing the red.

I used to attend TLM on first Fridays with my wife with the Franciscans of the Immaculate. One day we discovered that the old priest who celebrated the Extraordinary Form got reassigned. The young priest who replaced him did not know how to do it. So he went on a crash course. In the meantime...

We got the N.O. in Latin. There was a Latin chanted introit. The prayers were all done in Latin. The readings were in Latin and English, and the Homily was in English. The consecration was done in Latin, and we received communion on our knees and on our tongue.

There was no doubt after that, that I had been to Mass. I think we would have a lot less objection if ALL Masses were celebrated like that.

Autumn Cote said...

I really liked this article and others you've authored.

Would you be OK if I shared one of your articles with the community? I can provide more information about Writer Beat or answer any question, but better than anything I can say in words, please take a look at the site.

If yes, just give me an "OK" and I'll handle the rest (there is no fee).


Steve Kellmeyer said...

As long as the article has a link attributing back to this blog, please feel free.

thenewevangelisation said...

The problem is that most real trads know that the Novus Ordo is valid, but are exeptionally bad at expressing what they really mean.

Pope Paul VI had no idea what-so-ever about the reforms to the Novus Ordo lectionary.

During the reforms to the Novus Ordo liturgy it is a known fact that neither Pope Paul VI or the prelate overseeing the reforms (his closest confident) knew that most of the seasons and octaves had been removed from the new liturgy/lectionary, and had been replaced with ordinary time. Both believed that each was content with what was happening, and nothing was questioned. It turned out that neither of them were happy when they discovered what had been removed.

Pentecost was one of Pope Paul VI's favorite part of the liturgical year. When it came to the season of Pentecost Pope Paul asked 'where did the beautiful liturgies of Pentecost go?' He was visibly disturbed when the answer he got was 'you allowed them to be removed from the lectionary'. The point being that he had no idea that he had done this.

I specifically point out Pentecost for a reason... There is a deep problem with the removal of the octave and season of Pentecost and replacing it with ordinary time, as without a true liturgical Pentecost it is more difficult to draw down the Gifts of the Holy Spirit for the building up of the Church. It is also difficult for the continual yearly rebirth of the church to happen, when people are no longer aware of its significance.

I also point you to the fact that after all these things had been done, that Pope Paul VI had a serious 'mea culpa' moment and went in to silent retreat for a short while. He later went onto talk about the "auto demolition of the Catholic Church", after Vatican II.

Have you ever read the words that were removed from the liturgy. They are the very words that teach a Catholic how to be a saint.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

It doesn't matter if the Pope understood what he was doing or not.
He did it.
Case closed.

Liturgy is promulgated through an Apostolic Constitution, the highest level of authority in the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. The Pope doesn't have to know what he's doing. God knows what He is doing. Liturgy, in addition to being a sanctifying instrument, is also a teaching instrument for the Universal Church. The Pope promulgated it to the Universal Church.

Roma locuta. Causa finita est.

thenewevangelisation said...

Have you ever heard of the Vision of Pope Leo XIII? I suspect not.

However, what can be gleaned here can be backed up by the messages of Fatima, Garabandal, and Akita. You do know that even Mary has said that the Church is under attack.

You do know that the Vatican still refuse to deny that Bugnini, who actually oversaw the wording of the Novus Ordo, was a freemason. You do know what a freemason is, don't you...

Yes, we all know that the NO is valid, but open your eyes. What do you see around you in the Church? Even this week Cardinal Burke has had a call to action because of the attacks that the Church is under from within.

Change the way that the people pray, and you will change what they believe.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Private revelation is a waste of everyone's time. It has no bearing on the Faith. I know that YOU, sir, are doing the work of a Freemason by the fact that you accuse a pope of being a Freemason. That is exactly what a Freemason would do - accuse the occupant of the Chair of Peter of heresy in order to sow division in the Church.