If the NO never existed...

[Ite ad Ioseph]

Many people talk about how they like the Novus Ordo better because of blah blah blah....
I've heard people talk about how they are glad that the liturgical reforms aka the destruction of the Roman liturgy (but they wouldn't put it that way) happened, so I think, what would've happened if the New Mass wasn't made, that all Roman Catholics had the Traditional Latin Mass, and the Mass wouldn't even be called Traditional because it was the only mass we had.
Would those people hate the Traditional Mass then if it was the only Mass they had? I bet not. People who dislike the "Old Mass", not that there are many but they do exist, may have thought differently if the New Mass never existed.
Opinions? Or should I just shut up because I am bitter over something I can't change?

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by Ite ad Ioseph

Many people talk about how they like the Novus Ordo better because of blah blah blah....
I've heard people talk about how they are glad that the liturgical reforms aka the destruction of the Roman liturgy (but they wouldn't put it that way) happened, so I think, what would've happened if the New Mass wasn't made, that all Roman Catholics had the Traditional Latin Mass, and the Mass wouldn't even be called Traditional because it was the only mass we had.
Would those people hate the Traditional Mass then if it was the only Mass they had? I bet not. People who dislike the "Old Mass", not that there are many but they do exist, may have thought differently if the New Mass never existed.
Opinions? Or should I just shut up because I am bitter over something I can't change?

I will suggest that bitterness is a poison in the soul and that you should work to understand with as much detachment, peace, surrender to God and humility as possible.

In order to understand, it requires dispassionate reading in a serious, wide-reaching and objective way about liturgical history and the theology of liturgy in the Church both East (especially East) and West.

Your proposal here doesn't take into consideration that the Tridentine Mass was a topic at the Second Vatican Council, and virtually all of the bishops in the world (including Archbishop Lefevbre) voted to "reform it".

This might cause you more bitterness, but it shouldn't. If you end up concluding (as some people have) that all the Catholic bishops went insane simultaneously, or they were all closet-modernists, or they were all deceived by Satan, then you're never going to understand the liturgy of the Church.

I will suggest also that there can be some very deep pains that people have suffered because of the liturgical changes of the last 40 years and those hurts are so profound that it makes it impossible to calmly, dispassionately and honestly see why a liturgical reform was called for and why Abp. Lefevbre and all the Catholic bishops with him knew that liturgical reform was necessary.

This can be a real problem, perhaps. The reform had to be necessary because we can't imagine the bishops voting for reform unnecessarily or because it was just a "nice idea".

It had to be done -- for serious reasons that can be traced back to Trent at least and certainly through the pontificate of St. Pius X and through the document Mediator Dei.

Just one man's opinion, of course. No offense to anyone is intended here and I hope none is taken.

[LilyM]

No true decently educated Catholic hates ANY form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist, be it Qurbono, DL of St John Chrysostom, TLM or Pauline Mass. Although many have their preferences for various reasons.

Of course there are a certain amount of pros and cons with each form - some of which are more important for some people than others. I thank God that Benedict XVI has given us a somewhat wider choice with the Motu Proprio.

As for TLM - what do you think the people felt who were attached to the liturgies that the TLM did away with? Could some of them possibly have felt a bit lost, a bit nostalgic for what they were used to? A bit uncomfortable with change? A bit like a lot of TLM devotees in fact?

I think it stands to reason that if the NO hadn't been implemented, then a percentage of those people who dislike the TLM, sadly, probably would have left the Church. Just as many did when the Church refused to budge over the birth control issue. And as many do today over issues of gay marriage, women's ordination etc.

I think either way some people would've been unhappy enough to leave - whether there would be more in the event of no NO, and what the impact on the Church would have been, it's impossible to say really.

[Navarre]

Originally Posted by Ite ad Ioseph

Many people talk about how they like the Novus Ordo better because of blah blah blah....
I've heard people talk about how they are glad that the liturgical reforms aka the destruction of the Roman liturgy (but they wouldn't put it that way) happened, so I think, what would've happened if the New Mass wasn't made, that all Roman Catholics had the Traditional Latin Mass, and the Mass wouldn't even be called Traditional because it was the only mass we had.
Would those people hate the Traditional Mass then if it was the only Mass they had? I bet not. People who dislike the "Old Mass", not that there are many but they do exist, may have thought differently if the New Mass never existed.
Opinions? Or should I just shut up because I am bitter over something I can't change?

Who "hates" the EF? Just because the great majority attends and likely prefers the OF in no way means they "hate" the EF. Re-read your posting. This spaghetti-logic is getting too darned common on these threads.

[franklinf]

Originally Posted by LilyM

No true decently educated Catholic hates ANY form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist, be it Qurbono, DL of St John Chrysostom, TLM or Pauline Mass. Although many have their preferences for various reasons.

Of course there are a certain amount of pros and cons with each form - some of which are more important for some people than others. I thank God that Benedict XVI has given us a somewhat wider choice with the Motu Proprio.

As for TLM - what do you think the people felt who were attached to the liturgies that the TLM did away with? Could some of them possibly have felt a bit lost, a bit nostalgic for what they were used to? A bit uncomfortable with change? A bit like a lot of TLM devotees in fact?

I think it stands to reason that if the NO hadn't been implemented, then a percentage of those people who dislike the TLM, sadly, probably would have left the Church. Just as many did when the Church refused to budge over the birth control issue. And as many do today over issues of gay marriage, women's ordination etc.

I think either way some people would've been unhappy enough to leave - whether there would be more in the event of no NO, and what the impact on the Church would have been, it's impossible to say really.

The 1570 Missal wasn't a rupture with the past like the the N.O. was. All it did was codify the Roman Rite, so that Mass would be celebrated uniformly. The "liturgies done away with" were just local variations. The grand majority of the Mass wasn't changed - it was essentially the same as the Missal promulgated by St. Gregory I a thousand years earlier. So, as you can see, the codification of the Roman Rite in 1570 was completely different from the committee-made liturgy promulgated by Vatican II.

As for the second part, is it so bad they left? Catholicism isn't up for personal introspection. To support birth control, gay marriage, women's ordination is to go against the Magesterium. The Church can not and should not budge on those issues. We can pray for those that left but not change our teachings.

Also, it is a bit ridiculous to compare those that would leave over discipline with those that would leave over doctrine. As for people leaving the Church due to the TLM, what support for that assumption is there? What makes you say that? I think its ridiculous to say people would leave the Church if the N.O. never came about. Particularly when the reverse is true. Vocations and Mass attendance, as a whole, have been way down since the N.O.. Where are vocations most strong? The traditionalist orders, which have overflowing seminaries.

For reference, "A Short History of the Roman Mass," by Michael Davies.
http://www.latin-mass-society.org/msshst.htm

[Rush Catholic]

Originally Posted by Ite ad Ioseph

Many people talk about how they like the Novus Ordo better because of blah blah blah....
I've heard people talk about how they are glad that the liturgical reforms aka the destruction of the Roman liturgy (but they wouldn't put it that way) happened, so I think, what would've happened if the New Mass wasn't made, that all Roman Catholics had the Traditional Latin Mass, and the Mass wouldn't even be called Traditional because it was the only mass we had.
Would those people hate the Traditional Mass then if it was the only Mass they had? I bet not. People who dislike the "Old Mass", not that there are many but they do exist, may have thought differently if the New Mass never existed.
Opinions? Or should I just shut up because I am bitter over something I can't change?

If the "Novus Ordo" as you called it never existed then some people would leave the Church for Protestantism. I see where you are coming from though since I am a Reform of the Reform Roman Catholic and I believe the Ordinary Form has been hijacked by Liberal Catholics.

[Ite ad Ioseph]

Originally Posted by reggieM

I will suggest that bitterness is a poison in the soul and that you should work to understand with as much detachment, peace, surrender to God and humility as possible.

In order to understand, it requires dispassionate reading in a serious, wide-reaching and objective way about liturgical history and the theology of liturgy in the Church both East (especially East) and West.

Your proposal here doesn't take into consideration that the Tridentine Mass was a topic at the Second Vatican Council, and virtually all of the bishops in the world (including Archbishop Lefevbre) voted to "reform it".

This might cause you more bitterness, but it shouldn't. If you end up concluding (as some people have) that all the Catholic bishops went insane simultaneously, or they were all closet-modernists, or they were all deceived by Satan, then you're never going to understand the liturgy of the Church.

I will suggest also that there can be some very deep pains that people have suffered because of the liturgical changes of the last 40 years and those hurts are so profound that it makes it impossible to calmly, dispassionately and honestly see why a liturgical reform was called for and why Abp. Lefevbre and all the Catholic bishops with him knew that liturgical reform was necessary.

This can be a real problem, perhaps. The reform had to be necessary because we can't imagine the bishops voting for reform unnecessarily or because it was just a "nice idea".

It had to be done -- for serious reasons that can be traced back to Trent at least and certainly through the pontificate of St. Pius X and through the document Mediator Dei.

Just one man's opinion, of course. No offense to anyone is intended here and I hope none is taken.

I am bitter because some people hate the Traditional Mass. Not because the New Mass exists.

And also, why was a reform "needed"?

[Ite ad Ioseph]

Originally Posted by Navarre

Who "hates" the EF? Just because the great majority attends and likely prefers the OF in no way means they "hate" the EF. Re-read your posting. This spaghetti-logic is getting too darned common on these threads.

No sir, (I hope you are a sir so I don't look stupid), I have seen people on the boards and I have heard people speak in real life. I am not an idiot. Some people hate the Traditional Mass. I never said anything about people who attend the New Mass or prefer it, but people who hate the Traditional Mass.

[Ite ad Ioseph]

Originally Posted by franklinf

The 1570 Missal wasn't a rupture with the past like the the N.O. was. All it did was codify the Roman Rite, so that Mass would be celebrated uniformly. The "liturgies done away with" were just local variations. The grand majority of the Mass wasn't changed - it was essentially the same as the Missal promulgated by St. Gregory I a thousand years earlier. So, as you can see, the codification of the Roman Rite in 1570 was completely different from the committee-made liturgy promulgated by Vatican II.

As for the second part, is it so bad they left? Catholicism isn't up for personal introspection. To support birth control, gay marriage, women's ordination is to go against the Magesterium. The Church can not and should not budge on those issues. We can pray for those that left but not change our teachings.

Also, it is a bit ridiculous to compare those that would leave over discipline with those that would leave over doctrine. As for people leaving the Church due to the TLM, what support for that assumption is there? What makes you say that? I think its ridiculous to say people would leave the Church if the N.O. never came about. Particularly when the reverse is true. Vocations and Mass attendance, as a whole, have been way down since the N.O.. Where are vocations most strong? The traditionalist orders, which have overflowing seminaries.

For reference, "A Short History of the Roman Mass," by Michael Davies.
http://www.latin-mass-society.org/msshst.htm

Thank you. Someone who seems to understand my plight.

[LexKnight]

To be honest, it's really impossible to tell what the world would have been like if the NO never existed, and it's also probably a bit irrelevant as well.

I think a good analogy is to think of it a bit like the internet/email. If it had never been invented would people lament its loss? No, of course not! The old phrase "you can't miss what you've never had" applies here. Someone might think "gee sending a letter sure takes a long time I wish there was some faster way to do it" but they probably wouldn't hate writing hard-copy letters.

To carry the analogy further let's jump back into our world where emails do exist. Lots of people much prefer to send emails to send snail-mail; they think overall it's faster, neater and generally more efficient. That doesn't mean they hate snail mail, just that they think emails are a much better way of doing things. They may even like receiving/sending the occasional piece of snail mail, whilst thinking that doing it all the time really is not the best way to go about it.

In the same way, lots of people now have a preference for the N.O. and think that it is better than the TLM. It doesn't mean they hate the TLM, just that they think that there is a better way of doing things.

That said, there are (of course) people who do hate the TLM - but then again there are people who do hate the N.O. as well so it's not like either "side" can get snooty about people on the other side who hate their preferred Mass.

[Extempore]

Originally Posted by reggieM

I will suggest also that there can be some very deep pains that people have suffered because of the liturgical changes of the last 40 years and those hurts are so profound that it makes it impossible to calmly, dispassionately and honestly see why a liturgical reform was called for and why Abp. Lefevbre and all the Catholic bishops with him knew that liturgical reform was necessary.

While you are certainly correct in citing that certain reforms were needed and that Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with this, I think it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that the reforms suggested by the Archbishop (and many others) were ultimately the reforms that were enacted. Interestingly, if you read the Archbishop's writings on the council as well as that of others who were in similar positions, it is interesting to note that while 72 prepatory schemas were presented at the council none of them were ultimately adopted. It is my understanding (and that of many Catholics) that what was contained in these schemas were reforms completely compatible with the whole of Catholic tradition. What eventually filtered down from Vatican II bore little to no resemblance to these.

So yes, many were in favor of "reform" generally, but many were unhappy with the form that it ultimately took.

Originally Posted by Rush Catholic

If the "Novus Ordo" as you called it never existed then some people would leave the Church for Protestantism. I see where you are coming from though since I am a Reform of the Reform Roman Catholic and I believe the Ordinary Form has been hijacked by Liberal Catholics.

A previous poster already commented on this, but I am always surprised to read posts like this. Your comments appear to indicate that Vatican II was necessary to keep people from leaving the Church for Protestantism? This leads one to ultimately conclude that either:
(1) the Church did not have the fullness of faith to begin with (Wrong)
or,
(2) that it was necessary for the Church to adapt herself to Protestantism in order to be "more appealing" to those who would have left if things had stayed the same (Also wrong).

Remember, you can never mix the Truth with error and have it remain the Truth. So too you cannot mix the Truth of the Catholic Faith with the errors of other sects and religions. They are wholly incompatible.

Please do correct me though, if I have interpreted your meaning wrongly. This is merely what impression your words conveyed...

[LexKnight]

Originally Posted by Extempore

Remember, you can never mix the Truth with error and have it remain the Truth. So too you cannot mix the Truth of the Catholic Faith with the errors of other sects and religions. They are wholly incompatible.

Although it is important that we remember the "Truth," as such, is not an entirely stationary concept. For example, the Eucharist as celebrated just before Vatican II would have been entirely different to the kind of Eucharistic celebration immediately after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, or even different to the Eucharistic celebration a few hundred years after that. Does that mean that any of these are "errors" or any less the Truth? No, of course not. Rather, it reflects the way in which the Truth has evolved to reflect certain societies and cultures over time.

In short: just because Protestants did it first doesn't mean that it's necessarily an error. Maybe it wasn't right for the world when the Protestants did it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for the world today. Who knows, maybe the Holy Spirit is working through Protestants to prompt the Catholic Church in the right direction

[Extempore]

Originally Posted by LexKnight

Although it is important that we remember the "Truth," as such, is not an entirely stationary concept.

So, are you saying that the Truth changes or rather that it can be clarified over time? If the former, I vehemently disagree, and if the latter, than I agree with reservation, namely that the "clarification" does not involve mixing truth with error.

Originally Posted by LexKnight

For example, the Eucharist as celebrated just before Vatican II would have been entirely different to the kind of Eucharistic celebration immediately after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, or even different to the Eucharistic celebration a few hundred years after that. Does that mean that any of these are "errors" or any less the Truth? No, of course not. Rather, it reflects the way in which the Truth has evolved to reflect certain societies and cultures over time.

I agree up to the point where you talk about the Truth "evolving to reflect certain societies and cultures" which kind of makes me nervous. Again, if you mean that it is the nature of truth to be widely disseminated and for the individual to want to seek it then, yes, by all means I agree.

However, if this "evolution of truth" involves mixing it with elements of falsehood or profanity or heresy then no, it cannot be so.

Originally Posted by LexKnight

In short: just because Protestants did it first doesn't mean that it's necessarily an error. Maybe it wasn't right for the world when the Protestants did it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for the world today. Who knows, maybe the Holy Spirit is working through Protestants to prompt the Catholic Church in the right direction

When Protestants did what, exactly? Defied Church teaching? Abhored the Mass and the Pope? The Reformation was much more than a simple, well-intentioned desire to correct the errors in the Church. Luther despised the Church calling it a "false, blasphemous cult" and repeatedly attacked the sacrificial nature of the Mass, stating "I affirm that all brothels, murderers, robberies, crime, adulteries are less wicked than this abomination of the Popish Mass."

Protestantism was a heresy and an error. I cannot see how it was simply "not right for the world when the Protestants did it." By mixing in elements of Protestantism to the Mass, we are, essentially acknowledging that Luther was right and that the Mass of all time was wrong.

What have we done then if not introduce truth and error together? Maybe the conclusion is actually is that simple and, if there is one thing we can take from Luther, perhaps it might be an ability to condemn the errors of Protestantism with the same ease in which he condemned the Pope and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Or, as popular terminology would prefer, the Eucharistic Celebration? Right.

[LexKnight]

Extempore I probably worded myself badly. It's a bit hard to describe in words. I wasn't so much saying that the Truth changes, but rather it has different meanings in different places and at different times. To use an extremely simple example, a few hundred years ago it would have been considered shockingly immodest for a woman to wear trousers. All kinds of nasty things would be said about her. In today's society people wouldn't looks twice if a woman walked past in a nice tailored suit.

When Protestants did what, exactly? Defied Church teaching? Abhored the Mass and the Pope? The Reformation was much more than a simple, well-intentioned desire to correct the errors in the Church. Luther despised the Church calling it a "false, blasphemous cult" and repeatedly attacked the sacrificial nature of the Mass, stating "I affirm that all brothels, murderers, robberies, crime, adulteries are less wicked than this abomination of the Popish Mass."

Protestantism was a heresy and an error. I cannot see how it was simply "not right for the world when the Protestants did it."

I wasn't talking about Protestantism in itself, but rather I was saying "just because a protestant does it doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong." I mean, let's say a Protestant Theologian writes a book. Let's say that this hypothetical book has some good ideas in it, and some bad ideas in it. The good ideas are good, regardless of the fact that it was a Protestant who came up with them, the bad ideas are bad ideas because they are not good ideas - not because a Protestant wrote them down.

In the same way, a Protestant may (possibly) come up with an excellent way to worship, or may write an excellent song for use in liturgy and we as Catholics can be humble enough to say "Wow, you know that is actually a good idea/song/etc." Just because it was made by a Protestant doesn't mean that it is inherently bad.

This isn't, of course, to say that all protestant ideas are good, or even that the majority of them are. However, to dismiss something simply because it's a Protestant concept is foolish.

By mixing in elements of Protestantism to the Mass, we are, essentially acknowledging that Luther was right and that the Mass of all time was wrong.

Except that it isn't really the "Mass of all time," as our celebrations of the Eucharist have changed a great deal over the two millennia of the Church's existence. I'm sure if we were to show the N.O., or even the TLM to a Catholic from the first or second century they'd probably go "Okay, but what is it?"

What have we done then if not introduce truth and error together?

We have to be careful not to confuse the error or Protestantism itself with (all) the acts of Protestants. Like I said; just because a Protestant does it doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Or, as popular terminology would prefer, the Eucharistic Celebration? Right.

For reference, I used the therm "Eucharistic Celebration" because I was discussing activities of the early Church (within the first hundred or so years of Jesus' death and resurrection) and I wasn't sure if the term "Mass" would have been appropriate for that point in history. It's also not technically wrong - a Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist, hence a "Eucharistic Celebration."

[LexKnight]

Originally Posted by LexKnight

Extempore I probably worded myself badly. It's a bit hard to describe in words. I wasn't so much saying that the Truth changes, but rather it has different meanings in different places and at different times. To use an extremely simple example, a few hundred years ago it would have been considered shockingly immodest for a woman to wear trousers. All kinds of nasty things would be said about her. In today's society people wouldn't looks twice if a woman walked past in a nice tailored suit.

I realised that I didn't really finish this thought (and I didn't know if I should edit or not). Just sort of tack this on to the end of the paragraph.

So "the Truth" is that people should not dress immodestly. X-hundred years ago that Truth would have meant "that women should not wear trousers" - in today's society that would mean something more like "women should not wear mini-skirts and ridiculously low-cut tops". Another example: we are told not to look lustfully upon people, which even a few decades ago would have been about looking at people we've seen in person and not thinking lustfully about them. Now it can mean things like "do not electronically download pornographic videos onto your laptops/PCs/iPhones and look at it."

Enough examples and now getting to my point: We are told that we must worship reverently and with respect for what's going on. Before Vatican II there was a belief that the TLM was the only way to worship reverently. Post-Vatican II the Church came to an understanding that this was not the only way that one could worship God in a reverent way.