I saw the concerns of this piece first hand a couple of years ago when I attended a conference advertising a TLM Mass offered by Bishop Strickland. At that time, Bishop Strickland was not comfortable with the TLM ceremonials yet so he declined to do the TLM even with the guidance of the well-trained servers and MC. The organizers panicked but thought of a compromise to offer a Latin TLM. The choir of course was set to chant the TLM propers. Which they did. When I heard about this before mass began, I knew it was going to be a disaster. And a disaster it was. Neither the NO nor the TLM was honored that day. There were no congregational responses because there was no Latin text in front of them to respond. No handouts. No congregational singing even for the common Latin that you sometimes hear in the NO. Nothing. A thousand Catholics confused as to what was going on. Smh. B16 probably had good intentions to equate the EF and the OF by using those terms, and when SP came out it was frustrating because Gamber made such a good case for both Rites to be treated separately. I think B16 had psychological and sociological reasons for equating the rites, maybe to avoid the concerns of retrograde liturgy from the mainstream.
Tldr: for the traditionalist, a Latin NO is definitely not a solution, it's an insult, and exposing the liturgical ignorance of the one proposing such a solution.
And yet it's great to see bishops moving towards tradition and they should be encouraged to do so. I think Bishop Strickland's position towards the TLM is different now. Indeed I think I recall years ago, Bishop Schneider defending the Novus Ordo. If people are of good will, they will be open to public about turns on once previously held positions.
I don't think there was a shift in position with Bishop Strickland. Maybe I was not clear. The reason why he declined to do the TLM was not because he doesn't love the TLM, but he had only offered it publicly once or twice before and he was unfamiliar with the ceremonials. It's only prudent that he declined to do the TLM in a conference setting. Better to do the NO very well and according to rubrics then to do the TLM with all sorts of liturgical abuse mistakes. I'm sure you would agree.
Also, the Low Mass and even High Mass in the TLM are quite different a Pontifical with all the extra ceremonials. I had the experience of serving a pontifical solemn high Mass with Bp. Schneider and though I’ve had experience as a server and even straw subdeacon, I was pretty lost.
Ah ok, thanks for clarifying. I probably disagree though on your final point. I think a clumsy but we'll intentioned TLM will always surpass the NO in all of its possible manifestations. It's inherently artificial and a mockery.
I attended Mass in the Detroit Archdiocese two Sundays ago, a church I had attended many times before. The Pastor had offered the TLM previous to the banning by the Archbishop, so he is offering the NO Mass in Latin. 1) He celebrated ad Orientem aka vs Deum
2) He did his preparation prayers at the altar.
Following this the Liturgy of the Word celebrated 100% in Latin, Gregorian Chant etc. The readings were repeated at the end of this in English followed by a very brief Homily.
Everything following was in Latin. Communion was received at the Communion rail, on the tongue.
Afterwards, we spoke to Father. In the course of the conversation, we learned that his superior wouldn’t grant permission for him even to do this, but he had done his homework. Every jot and tittle was faithful to Sacrosanctum Conciliium and to the GIRM. So he appealed to the Vatican and was given permission.
He sees this as a way to remain obedient but still try to serve his flock. Interestingly, it wasn’t nearly as full as the TLM.
I recently attended a NO mass in Latin after almost exclusively attending the TLM. It felt like we were being yelled at in Latin. It was awful and definitely not the solution.
Thank you for this. I stopped attending Mass at the Benedictine Monastery nearby (in Vermont) because it is the NO in Latin. The remainder of their Liturgy is beautiful and proper Latin as in other Monasteries i.e. Clear Creek, but the NO in Latin left me hallow. It took me quite some time to recognize that.
(I was wondering why I couldn't comment on the Pelican page as I did transfer my membership yesterday)
Thanks. Yes, it's like a Bauhaus building that's gilded in a Baroque style. The thing and the language don't fit together.
There will be a community section for comments at Pelican+. Still being built. We needed to open it to the public in order to get it going but it's a bit like living in an apartment building whose upper floors are being added on! So many good things coming!
Yes. There is a plan in the works to send out periodic "What's New at Pelican" emails, which will of course include my articles. It will be a bit different but the point is, you will still be informed.
Indeed, there's nothing new under the sun... but it's surprising how slow some can be to admit what is right in front of their noses.
A point I did not bring out in the essay but might as well include here is the following:
It can actually be "adding insult to injury" to do the Novus Ordo in Latin. Why do I say this? Because when the Novus Ordo is in the vernacular, it feels like a different rite, as in fact it is (see my book "The Once and Future Roman Rite"); but when it's done in Latin, it's as if the country bumpkin is dressing up like the city gentleman; it's a kind of inferior imitation that reminds one viscerally of what it is not.
Moreover, the Latin we use in the Roman Rite goes back over 1,500 years; it itself is one of the most monumental witnesses to the antiquity of the rite. But the Novus Ordo was a committee construct from the 1960s, so an ancient language ill suits it. There is a disconnect that simply doesn't exist in a traditional ritual.
That quote from Paul VI is truly stunning. He concedes that he is trading the ancient perfected beauty of the Holy Mass for a "profane" version but it will somehow be better for man. He is utterly oblivious to the rights of God and how He expects and demands to be worshipped. The Novus Ordo in Latin will always be the Novus Ordo regardless of how much lipstick is applied.
Interesting to note: given we are discussing the varieties and relative merits of two (of 23) forms of the Most Blessed Sacrament (of seven) of the Church Jesus Christ founded for the purpose of helping the faithful members of the “mystical Body of Christ” to receive the grace to persevere in faith until death so that we might happily spend our eternity in heaven with Him, by enabling us to fulfilling his command that we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and adore Him appearing to us with His resplendent magnificent glory mercifully hidden from us behind a veil, appearing, smelling, tasting, as the humble creatures of bread and wine, that there is no mention of “Jesus” or “real presence” or “potential infinite grace”, or “sacrament” or “Eucharist”. It is all about the ornamental Pelagian wrappings and box delivering to us the Real Present.
Nor, importantly, is there any evidence to suggest that the infinite grace potentially available for us is more infinite in one form than another. It seems to me that by this most vital criterion both forms are equal in dignity and potential efficacy in helping us sojourn towards our eternal end.
What you are not taking into account is the subjective disposition of the attendee as well as the objective value of the liturgy as a work offered to God.
And, for a more extensive response concerning how the merit of Masses can differ (and this, according to entirely well-recognized theological principles):
""...and inspire no one." Correct, but there remains that breed of conservative Catholic, who would happily accept a smells and bells Novus Ordo, as long as they are in conformity with their local ordinary. Indeed, I expect that would be their first choice.
I saw the concerns of this piece first hand a couple of years ago when I attended a conference advertising a TLM Mass offered by Bishop Strickland. At that time, Bishop Strickland was not comfortable with the TLM ceremonials yet so he declined to do the TLM even with the guidance of the well-trained servers and MC. The organizers panicked but thought of a compromise to offer a Latin TLM. The choir of course was set to chant the TLM propers. Which they did. When I heard about this before mass began, I knew it was going to be a disaster. And a disaster it was. Neither the NO nor the TLM was honored that day. There were no congregational responses because there was no Latin text in front of them to respond. No handouts. No congregational singing even for the common Latin that you sometimes hear in the NO. Nothing. A thousand Catholics confused as to what was going on. Smh. B16 probably had good intentions to equate the EF and the OF by using those terms, and when SP came out it was frustrating because Gamber made such a good case for both Rites to be treated separately. I think B16 had psychological and sociological reasons for equating the rites, maybe to avoid the concerns of retrograde liturgy from the mainstream.
Tldr: for the traditionalist, a Latin NO is definitely not a solution, it's an insult, and exposing the liturgical ignorance of the one proposing such a solution.
Yes. It's the most awkward thing in the world: neither fish nor fowl.
I meant a Latin Novus Ordo. That's what Bishop Strickland offered.
And yet it's great to see bishops moving towards tradition and they should be encouraged to do so. I think Bishop Strickland's position towards the TLM is different now. Indeed I think I recall years ago, Bishop Schneider defending the Novus Ordo. If people are of good will, they will be open to public about turns on once previously held positions.
I don't think there was a shift in position with Bishop Strickland. Maybe I was not clear. The reason why he declined to do the TLM was not because he doesn't love the TLM, but he had only offered it publicly once or twice before and he was unfamiliar with the ceremonials. It's only prudent that he declined to do the TLM in a conference setting. Better to do the NO very well and according to rubrics then to do the TLM with all sorts of liturgical abuse mistakes. I'm sure you would agree.
Also, the Low Mass and even High Mass in the TLM are quite different a Pontifical with all the extra ceremonials. I had the experience of serving a pontifical solemn high Mass with Bp. Schneider and though I’ve had experience as a server and even straw subdeacon, I was pretty lost.
Ah ok, thanks for clarifying. I probably disagree though on your final point. I think a clumsy but we'll intentioned TLM will always surpass the NO in all of its possible manifestations. It's inherently artificial and a mockery.
I attended Mass in the Detroit Archdiocese two Sundays ago, a church I had attended many times before. The Pastor had offered the TLM previous to the banning by the Archbishop, so he is offering the NO Mass in Latin. 1) He celebrated ad Orientem aka vs Deum
2) He did his preparation prayers at the altar.
Following this the Liturgy of the Word celebrated 100% in Latin, Gregorian Chant etc. The readings were repeated at the end of this in English followed by a very brief Homily.
Everything following was in Latin. Communion was received at the Communion rail, on the tongue.
Afterwards, we spoke to Father. In the course of the conversation, we learned that his superior wouldn’t grant permission for him even to do this, but he had done his homework. Every jot and tittle was faithful to Sacrosanctum Conciliium and to the GIRM. So he appealed to the Vatican and was given permission.
He sees this as a way to remain obedient but still try to serve his flock. Interestingly, it wasn’t nearly as full as the TLM.
That's right.
1. It's a battle to figure out what you are allowed to do, and then a battle to dare to do it.
2. It's still not as full as the ancient rite.
I recently attended a NO mass in Latin after almost exclusively attending the TLM. It felt like we were being yelled at in Latin. It was awful and definitely not the solution.
Thank you for this. I stopped attending Mass at the Benedictine Monastery nearby (in Vermont) because it is the NO in Latin. The remainder of their Liturgy is beautiful and proper Latin as in other Monasteries i.e. Clear Creek, but the NO in Latin left me hallow. It took me quite some time to recognize that.
(I was wondering why I couldn't comment on the Pelican page as I did transfer my membership yesterday)
Thanks. Yes, it's like a Bauhaus building that's gilded in a Baroque style. The thing and the language don't fit together.
There will be a community section for comments at Pelican+. Still being built. We needed to open it to the public in order to get it going but it's a bit like living in an apartment building whose upper floors are being added on! So many good things coming!
Will your content on Pelican be pushed to us via email, as it is on Substack?
Yes. There is a plan in the works to send out periodic "What's New at Pelican" emails, which will of course include my articles. It will be a bit different but the point is, you will still be informed.
Thank you--I have been saying this for awhile!
Indeed, there's nothing new under the sun... but it's surprising how slow some can be to admit what is right in front of their noses.
A point I did not bring out in the essay but might as well include here is the following:
It can actually be "adding insult to injury" to do the Novus Ordo in Latin. Why do I say this? Because when the Novus Ordo is in the vernacular, it feels like a different rite, as in fact it is (see my book "The Once and Future Roman Rite"); but when it's done in Latin, it's as if the country bumpkin is dressing up like the city gentleman; it's a kind of inferior imitation that reminds one viscerally of what it is not.
Moreover, the Latin we use in the Roman Rite goes back over 1,500 years; it itself is one of the most monumental witnesses to the antiquity of the rite. But the Novus Ordo was a committee construct from the 1960s, so an ancient language ill suits it. There is a disconnect that simply doesn't exist in a traditional ritual.
YES!!!
It’s says the “prayer app” is available if you subscribe to the 15.99/mo. Version. Is that correct?
Yes, that's true.
We have priced the platform very competitively, charging less than almost anyone else does for a similar spectrum of content.
To give an example, I pay $10/month for a classical music streaming service. That's all they give me: music.
Pelican+ gives articles, podcasts, ebooks, audiobooks, prayers - eventually, movies, university courses, children's programs, etc.
That quote from Paul VI is truly stunning. He concedes that he is trading the ancient perfected beauty of the Holy Mass for a "profane" version but it will somehow be better for man. He is utterly oblivious to the rights of God and how He expects and demands to be worshipped. The Novus Ordo in Latin will always be the Novus Ordo regardless of how much lipstick is applied.
Interesting to note: given we are discussing the varieties and relative merits of two (of 23) forms of the Most Blessed Sacrament (of seven) of the Church Jesus Christ founded for the purpose of helping the faithful members of the “mystical Body of Christ” to receive the grace to persevere in faith until death so that we might happily spend our eternity in heaven with Him, by enabling us to fulfilling his command that we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and adore Him appearing to us with His resplendent magnificent glory mercifully hidden from us behind a veil, appearing, smelling, tasting, as the humble creatures of bread and wine, that there is no mention of “Jesus” or “real presence” or “potential infinite grace”, or “sacrament” or “Eucharist”. It is all about the ornamental Pelagian wrappings and box delivering to us the Real Present.
Nor, importantly, is there any evidence to suggest that the infinite grace potentially available for us is more infinite in one form than another. It seems to me that by this most vital criterion both forms are equal in dignity and potential efficacy in helping us sojourn towards our eternal end.
What you are not taking into account is the subjective disposition of the attendee as well as the objective value of the liturgy as a work offered to God.
I respond to your arguments here:
https://onepeterfive.com/is-the-mass-just-the-mass-2/
https://onepeterfive.com/all-that-matters-at-mass-is-jesus-responding-to-liturgical-heresy/
And, for a more extensive response concerning how the merit of Masses can differ (and this, according to entirely well-recognized theological principles):
https://unavocecanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/The-Merit-Of-A-Mass.pdf
Thank you for reading!
""...and inspire no one." Correct, but there remains that breed of conservative Catholic, who would happily accept a smells and bells Novus Ordo, as long as they are in conformity with their local ordinary. Indeed, I expect that would be their first choice.
You cant put lipstick on a pig