What are your opinions on this?

[AngryOldDem]

On another Internet Catholic board, quite the debate is raging over the Tridentine vs. Novus Ordo. To hear some there talk, the Novus Ordo has become the Church's Achilles heel -- or, more precisely, Vatican II's true intent has been twisted so out of proportion that it has seriously undermined the Church's importance and its influence on the laity.

The discussion (from the sidelines -- I am not welcome there) has been, for the most part, amusing. But then the other day, in one of the many threads on the Old Mass vs. New Mass controversy, I came across this statement:

<<My expereince is that parishes that have an unbalanced emphasis on social justice issues--- to the exclusion of fostering a deep personal relationship with the Lord. They seem to believe that doing is more important then simply being prayerfully with the Lord.>>

I was floored, and then dismayed. Isn't this exactly what Christ intended us to do? Isn't living the Gospels and living the Faith important? What constitutes an "unbalanced" emphasis on social justice issues, anyway?

How do you feel about that statement?

[hedgehog]

1. "twas always thus.

Careful reading of the Gospels will show plenty of social action (consorting with sinners, healing the sick, feeding the hungry) combined with periods of prayerful isolation. The problem is maintaining the balance. The social workers need to make time for prayer and the contemplatives need to put their faith into action.

A Presbyterian minister and Catholic priest went out together to catch a train. They got there in time to see the last car vanishing down the track. The minister took out his watch and shook it, saying "I don't understand, I checked my watch to make sure we'd be here on time.". The priest took the watch and noted that it was a cheap knock-off, barely ticking. "ahh" he said, "what is the use of faith without good works?"

[rug]

2. It's rare to see progressive or liberal people pushing the Latin Mass.

The Tridentine Mass movement may turn out to be a Trojan Horse.

[skater314159]

3. Wow.

Uhm... That quote rendered me speechless.

I'll respond to it later... when I get over the flabbergasted-ness.

PS - I'm pretty confused by this whole New vs Old debate... but then I was like two when PJP II was elected, so all I have known is Novus Ordo. And I'm a stinking Franciscan Social Justice freak too... so, yeh, I *need* to come up with a response to that.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. I support the social Gospel but personal prayer is also essential

for Catholics. Many Catholics today are more social activists than they are Catholic believers, which is an imbalance that needs correcting. The Traditional Latin Mass had a better balance and I hope that will be the case for the TLM today. Bishops are trying to block the TLM in their dioceses when the Motu Proprio gave the decision to the priests. Priests don't need their bishop's permission, but it' clear some bishops, maybe a majority, will make things hard for the priests who choose to say the TLM. The pope needs to put the bishops in their place but will he?

Before Vatican II, it was customary to stay and pray after Mass and people always avoided unnecessary talking in the sanctuary, in respect for the Real Presence of Christ in the tabernacle. Today, at NO Masses, people talk before, during,and after Mass, so it's no wonder 70% of Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence, which is a key point of Catholic faith. Some brave souls stay and pray after Mass but the sanctuary never gets quiet. We go to the 8 a.m. Mass and after that crowd leaves, the ushers are doing things in the sanctuary, talking, and soon the early arrivers for the 9:30 Mass are arriving.

The Novus Ordo allows little time for personal prayer and I believe that's been harmful to Catholics. In my parish, after receiving Communion, you can barely get back to your seat and say a quick prayer before Father is standing and praying the ending prayers. That's not good. Prayer after Communion is important.

Also, during the prayer of the faithful, the lector will say "And for our personal intentions" and pause for about five seconds before going on, which gives no one enough time to lift up their personal intentions.

As I said, I hope for better balance in Catholic life as a result of the increased use of the TLM. There are political conservatives who prefer the TLM and don't much care about the social Gospel. I hope they will change when liberals begin attending the TLM. And I hope liberals who stay with the NO will attend the TLM sometimes and be enriched by it.

[RiDuvessa]

5. Not a big fan of the Latin Mass.

Never understood the point of conducting the Mass in a language that most people don't understand. Also don't understand how newcomers and guests are supposed to get the Mass when they can't understand what is going on. To me, Latin Mass seems like another means of control by the priests and hierarchy. I think the Church is much more approachable when the Mass is said in the local language.

That being said, I don't have a problem with the Latin mass as long as there is a choice between the two. As long as there is always a local langauge Mass being performed, people have a choice just like they should.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. It's simple to follow along at a Traditional Latin Mass because you have

a Missal with Latin in one column and the English translation (or other vernacular language) in the other. The very first time I went to a Latin Mass, before Vatican II, I didn't have any problems following along and I was just a teenager, raised Protestant, so it shouldn't be any problem for Catholics.

And when you go to a country where English is not the vernacular, you can still follow along in your Latin/English Missal while others follow along in Latin/French, Latin/Japanese, or whatever. If you went to Mass when you were in Japan, you couldn't understand what was being said, could you?

But the use of Latin is not the sole issue. I don't want a Novus Ordo service translated into Latin, which is what many so-called "Indult" Latin Masses have become.


In regard to "control by the hierarchy," I think most Catholics don't realize that a small group of men at the Vatican II Council radically altered the Mass to make it more acceptable to Protestants. They actually said this, and had six Protestant ministers advising them about revising the liturgy. They did to Catholics what Luther had done centuries before, they replaced the Mass with a Protestant service retaining some Catholic bits, like incense and bells (which Lutherans may use, Episcopalians certainly do.) A Lutheran minister who "advised" said they had finished the work which Luther had started, and that he could use the Novus Ordo liturgy in his church. One world religion, anyone?

The way they implemented the changes followed what Luther had done in Germany and Cranmer in England: keep enough to make people think it's still the same but make major changes when translating and use ambiguous language.

When I converted, years after Vatican II, I naively assumed they had basically translated the Mass into English but that's not the case. They changed or did away with every prayer that even suggested Transubstantiation, which is almost certainly why a large percentage of Catholics don't believe in the Real Presence today. I frankly wonder how many priests and bishops believe in the Real Presence.

I've hesitated to talk about this here because everyone else seems to prefer the Novus Ordo, but I think Catholics should know how the Mass was deconstructed and desacralized.

For myself, I want the Mass that was known to St. Francis, St. Clare, St. Catherine of Siena, and hundreds of other saints, popes, and good faithful Catholics, many of whom did not read Latin, many of whom did not read at all, but knew and loved the Mass.