TLM Resources

I’m looking for a Latin Mass instructional DVD for laity. I have seen many DVD’s out there that are for the purpose of instructing priests but I’m looking for something that will also add in some catechetical info on the mass as well as we move through.

Thanks
J

You may find books like Gueranger’s

cantius.org/go/webstore/product/explanation_of_the_prayers_and_ceremonies_of_holy_mass/

but the laity was and is required only presence, no rubrics at all for the participation of the laity

Time to time the St John Cantius fathers make seminars for the laity about the TLM, try to contact them may be they have some unpublished material or references. Their DVD’s are for priests and altar servers.

I’m not really talking about lay participation but rather understanding maybe why things are being done.

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen put out a coffee-table kind of book during the late '50s called This Is the Mass, with photos of himself celebrating the Mass and explanations.

Also, there is an hour-long film on Youtube called The Eternal Gift in which then-Msgr. Fulton Sheen narrates and explains the Mass. It is Easter Sunday Mass, 1941 at the Church (now Basilica) of Our Lady of Sorrows in Chicago, celebrated by Servite friars.

catholicfirst.com/thefaith/themass/ordinaryofmass.html

this good. I also recommend videos on St.John Cantius site and the book This is Mass. Bishop Sheen celebrated the mass in a private chapel with his nephew, I believe as altar server. The book was written by Daniel Henry Rops. Very good reading material

The understanding is participation. The truth is that the new form in many time better emphasizes the understanding (which includes the why) that the TLM. So if you want to understand, read the TLM parallel with the (difined/reverent) new form, and that will help

The penitential rite is community action, instead of the affair of the priest and the ministers

The reason of the teaching part of the mass is to teach the people, instead of reading at the altar alone.

The offertory is collection of the offerings of the people (prayer and material offering), instead of the affair of the priest and God.

And this shows that the consecration is the affair of the priest as the alterego of Christ, and we are spectators only.

The communion is meal together not just meal for the priest, and only accidentally/additionally for the people.

The concluding rite is sending us to the world and not just a series of ad hoc added prayers.

The reverent new form is the best resource to understand the TLM, and to distinguish between the essential and the additional.

The understanding is participation. The truth is that the new form in many time better emphasizes the understanding (which includes the why) that the TLM. So if you want to understand, read the TLM parallel with the (difined/reverent) new form, and that will help

This is not a slap against either form but there is no evidence or proof that the new form has increased the level of understanding of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Explanations by competent authorities are necessary to do this not fast and loose translations.

One might actually say that it has done the opposite.

For me personally it did. Before I compared the two forms line to line I did not understood the meaning of the single ‘Oremus’ before the Offertory hymn, and I di not understood clearly that the mass is the composite of the factors: gathering, learning, offering, sacrifice, meal, mission.

I believe that the understanding of the mysteries changes from time to time, and the competent authority is the living Magisterium, not the frozen past. This living magisterium put to the spotlight the propitiatory effect of the Mass in the time of the XIX Ecumenical council, but the XXI Ecumenical council changed the spotlight to the fuller set: gathering, learning, offering; sacrifice, meal, mission. We laymen became mature adults.

For me personally it did. Before I compared the two forms line to line I did not understood the meaning of the single ‘Oremus’ before the Offertory hymn, and I di not understood clearly that the mass is the composite of the factors: gathering, learning, offering, sacrifice, meal, mission.

Then I suggest you have been lulled into a false sense of security. Let me try to show you how. It used to be that the Pater Noster prayer was explained to us, at least it was for those of us who were curious about the Latin. Then all of a sudden the vernacular became the standard and today everyone recites it THINKING they actually know it. But really? How many adults know the meaning of “hallowed” or even “trespasses” as it relates to God, for example? How many have such knowledge of pre-Modern English to fully understand the prayer? How many even bother to ask what the prayer means? Life is always filled with questions but everything’s in vernacular now so everything must be okay. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just like the “Participation” is a false participation, the understanding of the NO is a false sense of understanding. Most Catholics today hear the mass if they actually go in their own native language but if you asked them any questions about it they would be able to answer very little.

We understand only through analogies to the world around us. The world changed around us, so do the analogies. This does not mean that the truth in itself is relative. Only God and angels (men in the beatific vision) see the truth immediately,

1 Corinthians 13:12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.

As the looking glass is changing, so does the understanding.

The appreciation of the adulthood of the laity started with St Pius X, and from him there is a quite straight line to the Mass of 1970 as it is defined. Not to the abuses, but to the Mass as the Church approved it. The recent status is not perfect, but the past was imperfect either.

One might say that period signaled the start of an organic development, but to call it a “straight line to the Novus Ordo” is a stretch and a half.

Once more: everything in this Earth is imperfect (except Jesus and His mother). It seems to me, that some people here believe that the past was perfect, and only the change of the liturgy made it wrong.

I have no illusions about the new form, but neither about the old form. For me, that is clear memory (When you will be in my age you will understand that the time of your youth comes up clear, the time of present is in shadow) People went to Church because there was nothing else to do in Sunday morning. In Hungary they sung or listened to quite sentimental vernacular songs, watched each other, slept during the sermon, and the mass itself meant almost nothing for them. They knew that they have to be present before the first ring for the offertory, and many left after the communion of the priest. The Sunday Mass with sermon, reading the Gospel in vernacular and Leo XIII prayer was ground down in 50 minutes. Only a few had missals, and the few of the few were able to use it.

The average is not better today. The new form did not made people better, only kept about a third of the people attend the Sunday Masses in a word, when there are many other things to do in Sunday morning. (less than a 1/50 attends TLM, and according to the study in England about only 40% of those who attend the new form would even try the old form.)

The deeper understanding of the Mass comes not for the majority, but for those who can compare the two forms with open mind and heart.

  • prayers which were accidental later additions (Psalm 42, Last Gospel) were left out,
  • the penitential aspect of the gathering became emphasized for the laity too,
  • the Scriptural reading became balanced and fuller,
  • the single ‘Oremus’ was extended again to the traditional prayer of the faithful,
  • the offertory process: we bring what is ours, is visible,
  • the controversial offertory prayers were changed,
  • the communion of the priest and the people was contracted to one unit,
  • the closing is logical.

The flow of the new form shows better that the mass is: gathering, learning, offering; sacrifice, meal, mission.

The old form is not abused now, but around half of those who offer the old form are not if full communion with Rome, which is no good, and the old form does not justifies it.

The adversary works, regardless of the form. Neither the new form and the lip service for the unity justifies the abuses. We want to belong to those who are faithful to the magisterium, and reverent in the form.

I am not exactly sure what the stretch and a half means, but if it is break, show me the point of the break with before-after details, so we can talk about it.

That time was my time, my life, I like to talk about it.

1970 and following…I have spoken to many people who also experienced this time with you. They tell me of how they knew perfectly well what was going on in the mass, that it was very special, holy and transmitted to them fundamental truths of our Catholic faith very well and without shame. Then for no real reason to them, this time honored mass was dismantled piece by piece, and remade into what we see today, very little of which the VII council ever even suggested, and that which it did suggest was no where to be found. So I don’t think I am romanticizing the past when I advocate for the TLM.

I lived in Hungary. No visible change was experienced. Priest celebrated the new form, but as I attend now: toward the tabernacle, with bars around the sanctuary. As John Paul II said, outside of the language nothing said that the form is new.

(Psalm 42 was omitted in 1967, the new lectionary as experimental was started before that time, the communion rite and the conclusion prayers were changed in 1967 also) The penitential rite was the Confiteor, the Canon the Roman Canon. The real change was the vernacular and the offertory prayer, in Hungary prayed secretly by the priest.

When I came to the US in 1982 (Houston TX) the apparent change was the lack of the opportunity to get confession, and the communion process (on that time still to the tongue) not the Mass itself. It was still Confession for penitential rite and Roman Canon. Deeper changes came in the nineties and in this Century.

What are the experiences of your sources in details? I am interested, how sudden changes can be done. (I grown up in a communist country, the leaders wanted sudden changes but they failed. How in the US such efforts succeeded?

I will answer you more later, but I will say that the most striking detail of their experience is that there was little to no communication that something was happening until it happened, with no catechesis to instruct the faithful as to why the mass as they had known it and millions upon million of Catholics across generations was being replace by something very different. One of the main points of VII was that the laity need to understand and engage the mass at a deeper level. This emphasis was no where to be found concerning the why the new mass was here and why the mass they new was no longer to be apart of their lives.

I do not see the ‘very different’ nature of the new mass. The only not optional new in 1970 was the prayers of offertory, and the definition of the new lectionary which previously (since 1967) was experimental. Please tell me details, what else was new in the Mass as it is defined and not optional.

I can imagine that in some parishes or may be dioceses some traditionalist did not wanted to introduce the new, and thus omitted the required catechesis, but there was extensive catechesis in other places.

The media definitely wanted to influence people. Just an example.

I grown up on that way that Jesus is my fried as a boy in my age, and I received the holy communion as meeting with my friend. Once in a bible study, old ladies of my age wanted to convince me that before Vatican II kids were full of fear related to the Holy Communion, even bushing ones teeth was reason to fear, because a drop of water swallowed before Communion was considered grave sin. I simply doubt that the Church ever taught that anywhere, but can imagine that the media planted this to the mind of the people to denigrate the tradition, and through that the Church. On the same way the media could form the minds that the change was entirely evil, because this helps their rejection of the Church, and removes an obstacle of controlling the minds.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.