Is the New Mass Better Than the Old Mass?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.ค. 2024
- Support the channel by visiting brianholdsworth.ca
Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
My hope for this video is to give us some stable ground to begin having calm discussions about liturgy and I’ll start by addressing something I hear a lot whenever it comes up in conversation. People will say, "You can’t say one form of the Latin liturgy is better than the other. They’re both equally good because they both have the presence of Jesus and that’s all that matters."
And this sounds like the measured and moderate view that a person committed to dialogue and unity should have, but it’s the very thing you can’t say as a starting point to this discussion and to help you understand why, we need to be cognizant of the cost that was paid to create the new mass.
Imagine for a second that you’re you, and it’s today, and you’re going to mass - I know we’re really stretching the limits of analogy here, but just go with it for a second. Let’s say you’re a faithful Catholic who relies on the mass as the source and summit of your faith to anchor your life. As much as the world introduces chaos to your life, your faith and the mass are something reliable and dependable. But all of a sudden, you show up to mass, and discover that it’s been revised. It was done without your consent or consultation and it’s completely different - almost unrecognizable and you can’t go to the old one any more. It’s been confiscated like a piece of contraband that you never should have been allowed to play with in the first place. Think about how destabilizing and traumatic that would be for most people.
And as a result of that massive disruption, countless people left the Church. And not just laity, 10s of thousands of priests and religious abandoned their posts. So that’s the cost - that’s the price we paid for the liturgical changes.
But sometimes we need to be willing to make sacrifices if there is some greater good. But if the best thing that we can say about the new mass, which many people seem to insist is all that needs to be said, is that it’s equally valid - well, then I’m afraid it failed to realize its goals.
Podcast Version: brianholdsworth.libsyn.com/
![[MIRRORED] LISA - ROCKSTAR 🎸 MV version #LISA #BLACKPINK #ROCKSTAR](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-U58DuCCtZk/mqdefault.jpg)
As an Anglican, the New Mass kept me out of the Catholic Church for a very long time. It’s near identical and to be honest, Anglican services are often more reverent. Thank God for the Latin Mass and thank God for leading me home to the Catholic Church. Deo gratias!!
It's near identical because the Anglicans 'updated' their liturgy to be more similar to the Novus Ordo as an ecumenical move after Vatican II.
@@lordhonksworth7701 which The Vatican took it from the Lutherans.
@@johnpglackin345 Rubbish. Again, as a result of the liturgical movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, Lutheran liturgy started to look more 'Catholic'. The NO was a botched reform (imho) but it is most decidedly not Protestant
@@lordhonksworth7701 No you are wrong. I had an 80 year old Friend who was a Faithful Lutheran before he converted to the Catholic Faith back in the Late 50s. And he said the Lutheran service was very similar to the Novus Ordo Mass. So he want from a Novus Ordo type service to The Traditional Latin Mass. So ten years later he is worshiping God as a Lutheran again when the Catholic Church change the Mass.
@@johnpglackin345 You are wrong and so is your friend.
"As a Protestant clergyman I have run into the rather peculiar bit of truth that the average Lutheran will look upon the liturgy of the Mass in the Roman Catholic Church with complete disdain and abhorrence; he fails, at the same time, to realize that his own Order of Service is basically the same.
Lutheran liturgies have drawn from the liturgical thesaurus of Catholicism; but because of the language barrier, many of the clergy, and practically all of the laity, fail to realize this. Instead they condemn liturgical practices in the Roman Church which they themselves are observing, but in a vernacular language.
I believe, most sincerely, that one might make the rather categorical statement that Protestantism fears the vernacular movement in the Roman Church. With the rites in the vernacular, there will be for all of Protestantism to see, a body of faith and action which for so long they have condemned as mere Hexerei (witch-craft).
If Lutherans today could behold the Mass in the Roman Church even partly English, as a form consisting of: Introductory prayers, Confession and Absolution, Introit, Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Collect, Epistle, Gospel (preceded by Gradual), Creed, Sermon, Preface (preceded by offertory prayers), Sanctus, Canon, Agnus Dei, Post-Communion, ALL OF WHICH MAKE UP THE LUTHERAN COMMUNION SERVICE, then I believe most sincerely that the Lutherans of today would stop and re-evaluate the Reformation."
[Rev. John Murphy, The Mass and Liturgical Reform, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956
I attended a NO church for seven years. One day at a "ho hum" mass, it dawned on me that I was never actually praying. Yes, I said the words, sang the songs, etc, but I never actually prayed. The NO just wasn't conducive to prayer. After starting to attend the Traditional Latin Mass, I prayed the entire Mass and loved it.
Did you pray because you didn’t understand anything they were saying ?
@@miguelsemidei7619 No, I prayed the Mass. It's not hard to understand. The latin is one one side of the page and the translation is on the other. It's easy to follow. In the modern way, I realized that nothing really got inside. It was all external and got old very fast.
@@duaneadams5210 some people like it, but I talked to my mother and other older folk 65 and older and they say they went to Latin mass a got nothing out of it, they couldn’t follow along as you say . When the NO came out, to all of them was a relief they could finally understand what was being said. People who defend the TLM have to understand they arguing about it just creates more division in the church and these divisions are not healthy .
@@miguelsemidei7619 The Mass stopped being in Latin in 1965, the New Mass was promulgated in 1969, you say 65 years old family... Wouldn't they be little children at the time?
Exactly in the TLM we actually pray along the priest the whole time (in silence), thus we participate more.🙏
I am 81 and grew up with the Latin mass. I now attend the modern mass with all it's changes and I am content with the way we now worship our Lord. If I need Latin we have high mass at 9 am mass. I chose the current form and it has not changed my connection to God.
that's no argument for NO mass. It's just an appeal to personal preference.
Bravo! I am so happy that you haven't lost your connection with God because of the changes to the Mass. The Church is our Mother! We have to accept what she determines for us.
@@bornbranded29 wow, you are looking for arguments... this is my argument, in my city, there is no single church that celebrates a traditional mass. Am I living on a small city? no, I live in Mexico City, that's enough to say. Now you are telling me that I am not a good Catholic because I never have attended a traditional mass. Apparently you are the one that is trapped in an island mentality where you and your culture is the only one that exists. I have travelled extensively around the world and I have been in Catholic masses in Costa Rica, Panama Colombia, Brazil, USA, Germany, Austria, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Ukraine (yes Ukraine), and guess what, all of them were the "new one". I can say the most beautiful of them were in the Ukraine despite I didn't understand a word of what were they saying because it was in Russian but I knew exactly what they were praying and which part of the mass was. The world is bigger than your ant mentality and I was not judging any particular country of being culturally underdeveloped, I just felt very thankful with God because he let me attend and worship Him in almost anyplace around the world, not matter if it was Ukraine where we know the Catholic percentage is very low or Germany or Netherlands, were there is less than 30%
Yes I believe it is a form of scrupulousity that makes some Catholics prefer the TLM. That being said there can be some very irreverent NO masses (clowns, skateboards etc), but for the most part there is nothing wrong with them.
FYI I also have a preference for organ over any other musical instrument but that's just my scrupulousity that I need to deal with
@@horizon-one
Im sorry to hear that. Most people would also say it wouldn't be very reverent for God to born in a manager, but he humbled himself for our sake & thanks be to Christ he did so for us. Thus we must also do so in admist the dirt if necessary for the sake and good of his holy church. I pray to God that with all the dirt you have to absorb he will wash it all away, but we must have faith and trust in God.
We are very blessed in my diocese in Texas to be able to attend the TLM on Sundays in our little Church, and to have a good traditional priest. We hope and pray our Bishop does not obliges us to go back to the Catacombs like in the old times. The reverence and peace we enjoy during the Holy Mass is priceless. 🙏🙏🙏
Which parish do you attend? Just curious, as I used to attend the TLM at Annunciation in Houston
I'm at St. Benadicts in Fort Worth!
Im at Queen of Angels in Dickinson TX
@@russbus1967 where do you attend now?
@@russbus1967 St Jude Thaddeus in Pharr, TX (Rio Grande Valley in South Texas) with Fr. Jose 🙏
What makes the TLM great is that it's TIMELESS. The NO feels like it was a cool thing back in the 60s and 70s and as times changed, it became irrelevant.
@George George ok troll
@George George Can you elaborate about it being a flag for thinly disguised racism? I come from a religious filipino family and we love the TLM. Ive been to TLM masses and it’s very diverse and find no racism in it whatsoever. No offense but I would do more research before making such a baseless opinionated claim about the Church’s liturgy.
George is Protestant a does not like any Mass.
Makes me feel like I'm in the 1500s instead of the first century with the Divine Liturgy of Saint James.
@@siegeheavenly3601 TLM pre dates the 1500s by about 1000 years. Nice try. Divine Liturgy is awesome but why would you disparage the Latin Mass?
I fell away from Catholicism and into Protestant-ism five decades ago .
Scandals and
doubt -inducing changes were sweeping through the Catholic Church.
So I left religion .
Later , lonely for worshipping Ģod in community ,
I attended Baptist , Pentecostal , Mennonite , (etc etc etc ) Churches . I felt like I was following God's leading .
I learned a lot .
Then , I was led back to the Catholic Church .
To my shock , it felt SO Protestant !
Then I felt led to the Traditional Catholic Mass .
Finally .
I have found the very truest point of worship in my heart ; Worship worthy of an ineffably
worship-worthy King .
Creator.
Fathet
Savior
Lord
King ....
I thank God for the Traditional Latin Mass .
God bless, good to have you back !.
@@RickW-HGWT
Thank you very much !
Would a mass said in Klingon be better?
@@geordiewishart1683 If it was done reverently, I don't think the klingons would put up with the NO abuses, much less the profonations of pope gaslight and his degenerates. I think the Vulcans would make the best religious traditional or otherwise, logical, knowledgeable, and respectful, something the current hierarchy lacks in abundance
@@geordiewishart1683 Thing is , Latin is the ROOT language for MANY languages : English , French , Spanish , German , etc.
It is also not subject to evolving , so that a word means an entirely different thing from century to century . It's solid as a rock.
It also served as a unifying factor , as no matter where on earth one was , the Latin Mass was the same . Missal in the local language were a common staple of worship.
There was a time when a little effort wasn't viewed as some burdensome trial . People have gotten so soft and weak .
Anyway , the Klingon thing just doesn't work as a comparison .
Not at all .
I am a 73 year old cradle Catholic woman. I went to Catholic school, including during Vatican II. The sorrow and disappointment experienced not only by myself but my PARENTS at the “new liturgy”, I still remember almost 60 years later. Not only was the Mass changed, the familiar Latin gone, the statues were taken from our churches , the communion rails, the traditional music, the priest’s vestments , the respectful clothing, no covering our heads , no genuflecting, no patens during communion, no confessionals. All gone!! The new modern Churches built are stark, cold and do not inspire the same prayerful contemplation of God by the faithful. Unfortunately I can’t travel to a traditional Latin Mass. I still mourn what the Church has lost. I think it has contributed to the decrease of practicing Catholics.
It’s very difficult to attend the Novus Ordo Mass after spending a long time in a TLM. TLM is the only Mass I go to now, and it’s difficult to join Catholic family when they’re familiar with a NO Mass. I do go with them, and do my very best for the love of Jesus to attend the Mass reverently. Patience is key, but to pretend Mass types is solely a matter of preference is not right.
I do my best to avoid a superiority complex in regards to myself, because pride will only make things worse, but I cannot and will not pretend the Mass forms is not an important topic.
I agree with you 100% even though I have never attended a latin mass
I rarely can find my wat to a TLM, so I'm always assisting at a NO Mass, responding in Latin and following my Latin/English Missal when appropriate.
But Satan is sneaky. I'm trying to make my contribution as respectful as possible, but pride can SO EASILY appear before I even have a chance to ask for heavenly help.
@@mottledbrain
Jesus did not speak Latin. Koine Greek and Aramaic were the languages He would have known. The Hellenistic Jews were Greek speaking.
Jesus did not have His back turned away from His Apostles at the Last Supper, and His Apostles did not have their backs turned away from the converts during the "Breaking of Bread" (now called Mass). They spoke in the vernacular languages as well. Not Latin.
If a priest has been trained and given permission to preside at TLM, then that is good. It should be choice, not condemning one over the other, as I see some people doing. Mass is beautiful in any language: the Eucharist (Real Presence) is ultimately what counts. Not found in any other denominations.
I have been to Mass in other countries and even though I may not have understood the languages foreign to me, I could follow along knowing the rites and structure of the Mass. It is universally the same.
____
Also, Armenians (the first country to become Christian around 300 AD) did not speak Latin. Their Mass would have been in Greek or Syriac.
_____
People forget that when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles they spoke in tongues: in many languages that people there could understand the Gospel and thus those that heard and understood the good news in their own languages converted and became baptized Christians. Couldn't happen if they didn't understand what was being proclaimed.
I am thankful for our Mass.
God bless
@Sanctus Paulus 1962
Yes I'm aware of that.
And I appreciate your elaboration on the history of facing East. It is interesting that many religions (and Native Americans) prayed facing East.
😢
Love the tone and logic you present your videos with. Thank you!
If someone leaves the church over a valid liturgy, then that liturgy had become an idol even before the person left. Their heart was for tradition or culture or whatever, not christ whom they abandoned
The problem is that if you are a Catholic divine revelation is contained, in part, in tradition. That is why new forms of mass that no longer reflect that tradition are objectionable.
Attending the Latin mass doesn’t mean you left the church. Just because the novus ordo is valid doesn’t mean anything, a marriage can be valid and still be a shipwreck. The novus ordo is objectively worse than the tlm it’s an innovation made up by modernist Cardinals and has led to so much sacrilege and desecration.
@@michaelpena8845 agreed, I was addressing those that appeared to have left seemingly because the introduction of the NO, and those who would break communion with rome over it
@@christopher4192 objectionable yes, but never a reason to leave the church
@@0670083130
Well said!!
I really like that in TLM the priest looks towards the cross and has his back to the others. Today, when a priest looks at people, it looks like a lecture, but in TLM it looks like he is leading them - he is leading them to Christ, because he already knows the path.
I agree.
I find that when a priest is facing the congregation I feel obliged to look at him (it would be very rude to ignore a person who is looking at me and talking to me), consequently, when I say,
"...You alone are Holy..." I'm saying it to the priest!
@@alhilford2345 Yes, and we should not be “worshipping a priest.”
I agree with your remarks with needing a course correction. I think that we need a new form of the mass. One in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Sacrosanctum Concilium
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrosanctum_Concilium
Born and raised in the NO mass. All I knew for my whole life. Then went to a Latin Mass. I wasn't blown away or anything. It isn't like how some people on the Trad side portray it. However, I went back to the NO mass and realized how banal and boring it was. It wasn't conducive to prayer. It was stripped of all ritual and allusion to sacrifice. So back to the Latin Mass I went and have never looked back. I grew to appreciate the LM over time. It ages like a fine wine.
I grew up with the TLM until I left home and the Church. While l was gone, Vatican II happened.
So I returned to Church 20 years later and did not recognize Holy Mass because people were chatting with one another, and paying no attention
to the priest or actions on the altar. After lit ended,
I got copies of the Vatican Ii documents and read everything. The liturgy had changed but not the basics. I went back the following Sunday but later left that parish as it was not compliant with what l had read. Even when l found a more obedient parish I found parts of the liturgy, holding hands during the Our Father, hugging during the Sign of Peace, and generally horizontal rather than vertical approach? The music was more about "we" than
"Thee." Not sacred music. All in all, l prefer
the TLM, but l am housebound now with no ability to attend any Mass in person. I am 75 and nearly through with this temporary residence on earth,
Thanks be to God!
I’m so blessed to live close to a fssp and sspx parishes.
One of your best pieces, Brian. And not because I am a TLM person: I go to a Novus Ordo mass 99% of the time. I am utterly tired and downright bewildered at the refusal of the highest prelates of the Church to pretend that the concerns of traditional-thinking people are to be shoved aside without even acknowledging the issues at all.
Doesn't sound like you're TLM
Taylor Marshalls stages of being a Traditional Catholic:
Dismissal (it's rigid; they're mean)
Study (what really happened?)
Attendance (I'll try it on Sunday)
Joy (wow)
Anger (they stole this)
Peace (this is just home)
PS: Those who don't reach peace, usually go bitter or burn out.
Stay rigid my friends!
I have reached a general peace, but the anger will probably not be fully extinguished in this life. Most of us have countless family and friends that have apostacized over the last few decades due in large part to the feminization of the liturgy foisted upon us in the late 1960s. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi.
Taylor Marshall is a recent convert and a babe.
I love comments like this where catholics just come out and admit their hatred of women & femininity. It really strengthens my belief that Catholicism is misogynistic at it's very core.
I went onto stage 6.
Refer to Vatican 1 and the relatio of Gasser.
I’m occupying anger and peace stages.
I really enjoy the Byzantine or Maronite Catholic service for this reason, it’s Eastern and not Latin but it’s more traditional which I love. Although I know there’s not that option in every city, thankful there’s one near me 🙏🏻
I would LOVE to have access to any of the Eastern Catholic liturgies!! Sadly, we do not.
For a while we had an Ordinariate group in our area, but that seems to have disappeared.
We have a TLM within sane driving distance, but only twice a month. (and we Pray this does not get cancelled!!!)
So for most of the time, its Novus Ordo or nothing..... I do think the Novus Ordo is valid (at least I PRAY that it is!!!) but, I wish we had more options......
I completely agree with you. I mean. I do love NO mass, but divine liturgy just hits different. A priest, who was able to celebrate both liturgies, once told me that divine liturgy is the oldest form of liturgy and closest to how the early christians celebrated mass. Eastern church is just amazing. Eastern christians are so passionate and have such a deepth in their life as christians.
Yeah I attend the Holy Qurbana at my local Maronite mission. I’m not even the only non-Maronite Catholic to attend.
Same here. I been to a Byzantine Catholic mass near my house and I like it more than the Novus Ordo Mass
I have only experienced the Novum Ordo mass, and even since I was a kid to nowadays it has changed a lot. The priest now uses to ask questions and expect us to answer like in a school lecture, I totally don't like that. Some priests even walk around as if giving a TED talk. I also don't like someone other than the priest giving the eucharist.
Have you talked with your priest and explained why you don’t prefer that?
Camara:
The things you describe are not supposed to be part of the Mass. Your priest is changing the Sacred Liturgy to suite himself.
Sad to say, he's not alone.
A lot of priests from Mexico walk around during the homily. I don't see it as bad.
Try an Eastern Catholic Church if you live near one.
My grandmother told me about massive revamp in liturgy during the 60s and 70s, entire churches torn apart overnight sometimes. Parishioners were outraged, some just silent and somber, all eventually fell in line. It had to have been massively demoralizing and disorienting (literally, orientation-changing).
I think you bring up a good point. Many who stand by the NO either ignore or are ignorant of how swiftly the interior of churches changed in order to accommodate "the spirit of VII." There were some awful clerics who ushered the NO in as they further bastardized NO itself, holding it to almost relative standards for parish priests to customize it as they wish.
Yes. The statues of the Saints were ripped away in the hopes that Protestants would join the Catholic Church. Instead, Catholics were shocked and began to drop out.
I am a Brazilian living in France. Honestly, it does seem that your complain is mostly about what is going on in North America. Recently, I went to a traditional mass in a small chapel in Monaco, and really despite the fact I couldn't understand the Latin, the ritual has the same basic structure (I also went to some latin masses in Paris, in a big Cathedral). The cathedrals in France are beautiful, and it is not the same in Brazil. I lived in a somewhat poor neighborhood and I went to a very simple church, incomparable to what we have in France. The new rite is not the problem. In my opinion, thinking the new mass is a problem is just a very dangerous flirt with schism.
I think you have the right of it. It is our place to show reverence.
The schism is if it exists is coming from pope gaslight, his abuse of traditional religious and laity shows his deficits as priest and shepherd. The NO does not have the reverence of the TLM, and is more open to liturgical abuse.
I agree. And I believe it is mainly USA they are problematic.
Mass is beautiful in any language: the Eucharist (Real Presence) is ultimately what counts. Not found in any other denominations.
I have been to Mass in other countries and even though I may not have understood the languages foreign to me, I could follow along knowing the rites and structure of the Mass. It is universally the same.
Jesus did not speak Latin.
I agree, it really does seem like a First-World church problem that you have to consider country by country. Additionally, all the problems that are wrongly associated with V2 are almost always at the pastoral or parish level. Anyone who has traveled extensively would know that there is an incredible diversity even in how the NO is celebrated in the US of A and Canada, with some, imho, being far more traditional than others. Hilariously enough, as a Byzantine, who likes to worship at TLM on occasion, I've always been struck by the unpleasantness of many members of the congregation (not all, of course, but many). The really odd sense of cult-like Gnosticism exuded is quite odd to me.
Vous avez raison M. Entièrement! La forme du rite n'est pas le problème; on a simplement fait de la Messe une arène de combat idéologique, c'est triste.
Brian, you’ve always articulated so well what I wanted to say. Thank you for being our voices.
Loving your videos (as usual). Have followed you for years - you seem to get better over time. I personally find Latin Mass & Gregorian Chant far more sacred than the Novus Ordo - I’ve only had ONE Novus Ordo that wasn’t cringey as the priest was excellent in that ONE Sunday. Love your videos - GodBless & GodSpeed
Here in England, all masses as far as I know are the new order, there may be pockets where they do Latin, I've only been a Christian since 5 July 2008 when I got baptised and being brought fully into the Church after the RCIA course, and have only been to my local house of worship, St Edmunds we've 2 in the town both run by one minister who lives in the presbytery at Our Ladys, where I've been aswell also went to Northampton cathedral a few times, and to Walsingham shrine a few times all our priests used to be Anglicans, some converted to the church years ago and some during Pope Benedict, when he introduced the ordinariate, although I don't know Latin they sometimes sing the hymns, gospel acclamation ect in Latin but the rest the two readings and gospel reading are in English, but I believe the important thing is that we're praising and worshipping God and focus on him, we're not at mass to enjoy ourselves as if at a theatre ect, we're there to honour and respect God whether it's in English or Latin, God knows all languages and knows whether we're in Church for his sake or to please ourselves, some hymns I find dull and boring, but they're not being sung to please me, they're being sung to God and I tolerate them as after mass I go back to my flat and can put on the songs I like to listen to, I've listened to Christian rockabilly and other Christian rock and roll songs including doo wop and calypso etc on TH-cam, but you wouldn't get them in Church and rightfully so, as when meeting with the Church in the place of worship we're singing to God not our personal preference, as long as the Holy Mass is focused on God I can't see what the problem is whether it's Latin, English or some other form of mass, as long as God is the focus of the mass
Mass isn’t about you, and once you realize this, mass gives you the one thing you need most. TLM does a much better job of conveying this Truth.
"The mass isn't about you"
*Claims to know better than Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church what form of the mass we should ordinarily celebrate*
@@mikethemonsta15 nope just appealing to traditions of the Faith.
I’ve attended the TLM for several months weekly now. I really love the beauty, aesthetics, and tradition of it. I could even see myself going all the way TLM.
I still give preference to the NO. Yes, it has the risks of the cheesy music, bad catechesis, and poor preaching. However, hearing the words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” is really important to me. I am moved to tears even as the moment approaches. Younger priests do a wonderful job of chanting when possible and remaining reverent throughout the mass. I love hearing and exploring the Latin at a TLM, but I cannot seem to contextualize it. Perhaps I am too simple-minded, but NO seems more Catholic to me than TLM at the moment. Replies can certainly change my mind.
I will try to go to a TLM once a month but will be happy to continue attending NO.
UPDATE: I have been going for nearly a year now, and am happy to report I now go almost exclusively to the TLM. I still love and respect the NO, but now I also love the TLM! In fact, the NO has greater depth and meaning from this expanded perspective. So, has my mind changed? I affirm with a resounding yes. God bless you all!
I can’t take communion on the hand anymore and I can’t stand to see it done so carelessly by others. The NO mass is a big NO NO for me now.
@@RedWolf5 Fair enough.
@C. Alvin Zacarias I think that a TLM missal will give you the context that you want. I recommend buying a copy of the 1962 Roman Missal if you can afford it, or buying a copy of Ecclesia Dei’s Latin-English Booklet Missal otherwise.
@@JohnAlbertRigali Thanks, John. Perhaps the reason for my decision to prefer NO is the lack of help in understanding the TLM. I know an FSSP priest who will be positioned at our local TLM parish, so that may also be of benefit.
@C. Alvin Zacarias - I respect your honestly, and really DO respect everyone's right to their opinions.
FWIW, I'm a convert, and still a member of the Novus Ordo Parish in which we entered the Church. We have very limited access to the TLM, but we are blessed to have a good Priest in our Parish and a relatively reverent Novus Ordo - certainly more reverent than in most Parishes in our Archdiocese.
BUT - for me, bad catechesis, and the flawed Theology of the Novus Ordo are pretty much "Deal breakers". (And I am NOT saying N.O. is "Invalid" - I hope and pray it IS Valid!!!)
But - Having made the transition myself (while still attending N.O. frequently by necessity) I'd suggest to you that for a 21st century, English speaking person, its probably not possible to adequately "Contextualize" the Traditional Mass without experiencing it at least a half-dozen or more (and probably a LOT more) times. Literally.
I too am moved every time the Presider says “This is my body” and “This is my blood” - Though at times I struggle to reconcile those words with ambiguous phrases such as "the bread of Life" and our "Spiritual Drink". Are we to believe that the Eucharist Must - by necessity - be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord? or simply "Might" be? The Novus Ordo seems to leave the door open....
For me, I'm quite moved, and without reservation, when the Priest intones: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM" and "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINNIS MEI, ..." and its never unclear whether he's referring to Our Lord physically and substantially present in the accidents of bread and wine, or simply a symbol or metaphor.
IF you do not have your own Latin-English Missal, I strongly urge you to obtain one!!! A hand-missal (even the nice "red book") is quite Unhelpful (IMO) the first few times you attend a TLM, but thereafter (IMO) Invaluable. I was able to buy a 1962 "St. Joseph's Sunday Missal" on eBay some months ago for about $10-15. I think it was designed for children, but I find it very helpful!!! You can also print your own hand-missal for free from a couple sources on the internet (though an actual book is my preference).
God Bless You!
Strange that the vast majority of “Vatican 2” parishes don’t give the “main place” to Gregorian chant, as instructed by the GIRM and Vatican 2 itself. By the music you hear at these parishes, you’d think that Vatican 2 had said, “don’t give the main place to Gregorian chant”, or even, “give Gregorian chant no place at all.”
There is quite a bit of intentional ambiguity in Vatican 2, and ambiguity is a hallmark of Modernism.
Are you aware of the existence of ambiguity in previous ecumenical councils?
V2 document on Liturgy also says the use of Latin shall be retained. Honestly if we followed V2 the Mass would be very reverent.
@@killianmiller6107 To that I will say that there is more ambiguity in V-2 than in all the previous councils combined.
Mine does
3 Aves for you 🌹🌹🌹🙏🏻
(Prayed while letting the ad play on mute so you could get the spiritual as well as practical benefit).
Very good points you brought here, @Brian, (as always) but I was expecting a more scholastic approach of the issue. The sort of "pros and cons" exercise in both forms. I see you can't see the pros of the NO because of all the liturgical abuses. But, even so, I think we should try to make that exercise anyway. So let me give you what I consider to be some good advantages in the NO that shouldn't be ignored.
Innovation in continuity with previous reforms concerning vernacular.
If "pre-concilar" popes promoted the use of vernacular in some specific parts of the missal (mainly readings) and bilingual missals to help the assembly praying, now you can have beautiful polyphonic sets of the introitus that can inspire everyone to meditate the words the church defined for that day.
Active participation in the Mass.
The term was first used by Pius X but his reforms where only considered, in many places, by a social elite. In my country most of the people couldn't read the bilingual missals and would simply pray the rosary until the bell rang. With the NO missal you have to respond to what the church has set to pray instead of your individualistic prayer or piety.
More time to pray peacefully
One of the things that feels weird in most of TLM masses I went was how the priest read almost as fast as an Eminem song. Comprehensible. We live in a world that lacks time, and for the same reasons Pius XII reduced the eucharistic fast to one hour. But although an extreme reduction of text can reduce reverence, reduction can allow the priest to pray with a more aware heart of what he is saying.
Great update in the lectionary
Some times we hate so much the Sola Scriptura we almost turn to Sola Traditio. It's really hard for me to understand why people don't see the gift of reading through practically all the books of the bible by going to mass every day, and you can't have it in the TLM.
Let me leave here three more insights you might consider useful to this discussion in future videos.
Regarding the similarities with Anglican Church, I would say that if you went to an Orthodox liturgy you would find it more familiar with the TLM. At the same time, the Mass of the recent "Anglican Catholic Rite" (wich was used by some Anglicans before they came back to Rome) is basically the TLM with the King James Bible. Actually, people don't see how TLM tends to be more ecumenical (not joking). But to avoid the use of certain elements of worship because they were used by heretics isn't a a very good argument since other heretics and schismatics use many other elements we consider proper.
Many differences between two forms are no intrinsic. When you have a TLM that uses vernacular when it is allowed and a NO with all the traditional elements (ad orientem, gregorian chant, etc) in the same parish, one takes a little time to see the difference
(If they don't get the beginning). So I wonder if many of these discussions are based on the difference between the missals or the way they are applied.
As I saw Paul VI celebrating the new mass I realized how different it is when the NO is celebrated when the clergy knows what preceded it. The lack of clergy formation (caused by older clergy that was young during the 70) doesn't help, either.
Having said all of this, as a summorum pontificum guy that promotes a mutual enrichment of old and new, even if most of the clergy is not into it, I think we shouldn't discard anything that might help us to live the Holy Mass in a pius and loving reverence.
Absolutely brilliant. So complex in its simplicity. Well done Brian.🙏
It's amazing the content quality of your videos. Please keep making them.
I have been priveleged to be able to attend some private talks from a religious priest discussing liturgy in light of the moto proprio and what followed. One thing I found particularly fruitful was this Father saying that Pope Benedict the XVI seemed to be trying to direct the church towards appreciating the aspects of both forms of the mass such that a new middle ground that took the best from both forms developed. While I recognize that the TLM requires more out of me in engagement and need to learn, and will therefore enrich my experience of all the masses I attend, there are some parts to the NO that I do enjoy. For example, I appreciate having the extra reading (even though it does not always have the same theme as the other two readings), and holding hands when saying the Our Father (as that is meant as a communal rather than individual prayer).
Side comment; being told by authorities to not talk about/discuss certain issues in the church can absolutely be a red flag, however, it could also potentially be more associated as a pastoral action to prevent lack of proper education. To go back to your point of ignorance and the response to that, it is somewhat dangerous to only get one side of the controversy explained and then only acknowledge that side. Some folks are not properly disposed to handling nuance in that they are not able to eventually understand it, but moreso that they don't recognize early enough the lack of nuance they currently and properly understand.
I think the youngest generation of priests show much hope for the issues brought up here. Millennials active in parishes thirst for tradition and authenticity.
I’m not vilifying the older members of our church by any means, but it must be said the voices calling for a more Protestant liturgy and church not the youth I speak with.
There are also plenty of folks older than me who long for a more reverent and traditional liturgy. But I don’t hear their voices unless I search for them. God bless them for enduring. The common thread I’ve noted is a devotion to our Lord, a devotion to His mother, a devotion to the rosary, and the humility to put others first.
Watch "The Mass of the Ages" and you'll change your thinking on the TLM. I did. I converted long after Vatican 2 and had no experience with the TLM and then a really bad priest came to our parish and he turned our Mass into a joke. Literally a joke. I started attending the TLM and saw the difference in piety and reverance. We lost our TLM because of Pope Francis but hope it will be returned to us some day.
Hi Brian, I really appreciate your content. A message much needed on these crazy times.
Please interview Fr. Chad Ripperger, he is awesome.
Keep the good work and thank you.
Check out the Ordinariate. It’s kind of the “best of both worlds”. Very reverent liturgy and parishioners, while still using the vernacular. I’d like to see it become more well known.
Hot take: the Ordinariate have been allowed to use Thomas Cranmers' Liturgical books which had been previously condemned by the Church for like 450 years, which isn't a great look.
It’s literally a Protestant rite, this isn’t even debatable, it was written and used by Protestants for 450 years. Yea, it’s more Catholic than the new mass, but that doesn’t make it okay.
@@slickmechanical It's sad when a Protestant form of worship is heralded as reverent. TLM or bust for the Latin rite!
@ Comic Sans
It's not a "Protestant Rite". It's originally the TLM appropriated for use by the Church of England after Henry VIII broke from Rome.
The Vatican and the Pope have reclaimed the Anglican Rite for the Church but have allowed the form to exist as it has developed.
The biggest difference is that it's valid because there is a valid Catholic Priest who says the words of consecration and the Ordinariate is in communion with Rome.
There's no doubt it's valid; it's also reverent and not to mention it has brought hundreds of former Anglicans and Methodists into the one, true, Holy Catholic Church!
@@slickmechanical the rites were revised by the CDF and by the Roman Pontiff himself.
I agree with your point about discussing this recent mess. It is a red flag. Our priest told us they couldn’t discuss many aspects of what the bishop’s said to them in confidence about curtailing the TLM. That just doesn’t fly.
Wow. That sounds like typical clericalism to me, with a solid dollop of hypocrisy supporting it, to boot.
@@richarddefortuna2252 after Francis I blame the bishops for not taking a stand. Now we are outcasts who to others we look like some kind of schismatic folks who did something wrong.
@@1littleway I totally agree. I'm not sure what their true end-game is, but I suppose that is part of the problem.
@@1littleway Who knew that heretics would be underhanded and dishonest?
I considered going to the TLM tonight at a parish 45 min away from me till I double checked the Mass times.
I got the times for Fri and Saturday mixed up
As always, interesting and thought provoking video
Brian, you are correct when you say the NO Mass is closer to a protestant service than it is to the Old Mass (TLM). Long before I ever attended a TLM, I went to a Methodist church to observe their service (I did not receive communion). I remember thinking that it was very similar to the Catholic Mass (the Novus Ordo) and even feeling a bit proud that the Methodists 'copied' our Liturgy. Years later, when I started attending the TLM, it dawned on me that the NO Mass copied the Methodists, not the other way around!
I went through this same thought process. A few years ago, I attended various Protestant services (not realizing at the time that it is wrong to do so). I noticed that the Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist services were indeed very similar to the Novus Ordo. In fact, the Anglican service was nearly identical to the Novus Ordo, barring a few minor differences in vocabulary. It was shocking.
@@sophiajohnson8608 Not the Anglican service I attend.
Old mass…hands down
I was brought up with the NO mass. But just found something really special about the Latin mass.
I agree, I think it's the transcendence of it. What you come away from it afterwards isn't what the senses observed. That's about the best way I can describe it.
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
It must be a good video that someone has liked it before it has even begun!
Novus Ordo better than Tridentine Mass? In NO WAY!! Participation? We recited the Credo, Gloria, and responses in Latin. Didn’t understand the Latin? ALL Sunday Missals had the English translations for all the prayers. And as far as beauty, solemnity, mystery, sense of transcendence, there’s just no comparison. Tridentine Mass is far better. And it’s the Mass familiar to so many canonized saints and Doctors of the Church for centuries. What’s happened in the Church in the wake of Vatican II is really lamentable.
I go to my local novus ordo now and then only to leave reaffirming why I don't want to go there any more. I could almost cry. Its become a place if social activism rather than a place if worship. Last time I went, I was the only one who didn't wear a mask. During the community announcements before final benediction, it was made sure that I was informed that I was jeapordising the health of the sick and eldery...
Please visit an Orthodox Divine Liturgy! Romanism is a faith without grace, and the fruits have been ugly since, well, the 11th century.
That is sad. But I've seen the Latin Mass people had to wear masks, keep 6 feet distance, and they were shut down too during the initial scaremongering of CVid.
Thanks for info and insight. Appreciate it.
The Latin Mass is so beautiful, reverent and uniting. I love it so much. The NO is a protestant service.
Thank you for this. I have attended the TLM for decades now. An FSSP Parish in Ottawa. In regards the "new mass", "by their fruits (works) you will know them." A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. And a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. As you rightly point out in the aftermath of Vatican II, religious of every community practically disappeared. And while Vatican II does not call for, expect, quantify, nor demand the atrocious changes that have occured in the liturgy, the fruit of Vatican II is self evident. It is a Protestant "mass" taking place within Protestant-like "worship spaces" and appealing only to "Catholics" who have no idea of the treasure they are being denied.
...but isn't the fruit of the TLM the Novus Ordo? And the fruit of the SSPX disobedience? And the fruit of traditionalism suspicion and scrupulocity?
Shocking and fascinating history. I didn't now that many of the various familiar aspects of the Novus Ordo were not actually spelled out in the documents of Vatican II, but rather were implemented by a committee after the fact.
There are at least two videos on TH-cam which compare the TLM and the NO Masses section by section and show how anything a Protestant might object to was changed or removed.
@@bohmao :
Right.
The hinge of Brian's argument is: correlation=causation. However, church attendance across all denominations decreased throughout the 1960s, so the foundation of his argument is a nonstarter. We can have a sober conversation about liturgical reform, but not on the basis of this type of argumentation.
But it's so much easier to recycle prefabricated tropes and stereotypes.
Well said, well done video. Thanks!
Good video, Bryan! I wouldn't say that the NO and TLM are two different forms of the Latin Rite. Rather the NO and TLM are two different Rites and are exclusive from each other. They have completely different liturgical calendars, languages, and other things like communion kneeling and on the tongue vs communion in the hand, as well as ad orientem vs. versus populum. If you take the Traditional Dominican Rite, it's even more similar to the TLM than the NO (has minute differences), yet it's still considered its own rite... So it would logically follow that the NO is a different rite from the TLM since it has greater differences than other rites (Dominican Rite) that have smaller differences.
You’re spot on, except that the Novus Ordo is called the Roman Rite still. Although I will point out that while versus populum and communion in the hand are strictly forbidden in the Latin Mass and while they’re allowed and commonplace in the Novus Ordo, they’re not actually intrinsically things specifically called for in the Novus Ordo. But they de facto are the outward signifiers of it.
@@jefffinkbonner9551 It's still up to debate whether they are two different Rites. I would tend to think that the NO is not actually the Roman Rite. It could be called the New Rite. I think people need to get away from the whole idea of Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form. The Vatican actually suppressed these terms last year so the correct terms for these two different Masses could be the Traditional Rite and the New Rite.
Father Cekada makes very good points about the Novus Ordo.
Novus Ordo is valid, licit, and good.
I prefer the Tridentine Mass. I pray that it will be more available.
Most of what I like about the Latin Mass, can be done in the Novus Ordo. Ad orientem, Gregorian chant, chanted readings. In addition, I like Prayers of the Faithful, and speaking/chanting Our Father together. However, I prefer having the prayers at the foot of the altar, and the silent consecration.
The elephant in the room which, in an otherwise excellent review, you ignore is the fact that a significant number of bishops, priests and lay people (in Europe and the USA at least) simply do not possess the foundational beliefs upon which the traditional mass rests. In particular, there is only a partial acceptance of the real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, and a corresponding lack of belief in the mass as a sacrifice. This, at any rate, is the frequent complaint of writers who have studied in some detail the situation after Vatican II. It is illuminating to read the 'Short Catechism' authorised some time ago by the bishops of England and Wales. (I think copies can still be purchased via Amazon if not from your local church's bookstore.) A careful reading of what is said there about the mass and the sacrament of holy communion is likely to show that there have been substantial gaps in the Catholic teaching that many people have received since Vatican II. Yet nowhere in the documents of Vatican II is there any justification for these lamentable failures on the part of our shepherds to feed their flocks. Far too many people at all levels in the institutional Church have used 'the Council' as an excuse to go on frolics of their own, to the detriment of the Catholics they are meant to serve.
Exactly!
Lex orendi Lex credendi.
Thomas Cranmer, in England had to convince Catholics of the sixteenth century that they were just receiving bread and wine, so he removed altar rails, statues and stained glass windows and forced them to stand and pick up the Sacred Host with their fingers.
Martin Bucer, in Germany, was doing the same.
"Communion on the tongue gives the impression that the person is receiving not just ordinary bread, and that the man giving it is not just an ordinary man, but that he has some extraordinary powers"
(Paraphrased)
This strategy worked in the sixteenth century and it worked in the twentieth century@
What Bishops and priest don't accept the real presence...I haven't heard any??
@@TheDjcarter1966 For further information, see Davies, 'Pope Paul's New Mass', especially chaps. 15, 20 and 25. Another useful source is Amerio, 'Iota Unum', chap. 37, on the Eucharist, especially sec. 267. (Despite the title the book is in English!)
This distinction of the spirit of Vatican 2 and the council itself is more and more I suspect one without difference. We can only plausibly state it so much when there is shoddy theology, literal Elvis and John Denver masses being said and people leaving in droves. Eventually, driving home that difference becomes meaningless. We will need to do something to clarify the council once those who want to persevere in the revolution have gone on to their reward
I've read that the changes are a huge departure from the Council's written directives .
@@jackieann5494 True. I suggest that you read at least some of the Vatican II documents. At least Sacrosanctum Consillium and Lumen Gentium.
@@joan8862
Thank you.
I will do that .
@@joan8862 I would say that the documents evidently carried some of the truth from past councils whilst opening up an ambiguity that could be exploited by modernists
@@aloyalcatholic5785 definitely ambiguous
Thank you for explaining this. I'm in RCIA and this is the first sign of trouble I'm encountering. I'm not interested in a Latin Mass right now. I may try it, but I don't even understand everything going on Novus Ordo. I do know that I need to stay focused on Jesus, the Priest and the altar, but much of my attention is following along right now because it's hard enough to read the words and remember when to bow. I love it, but I'm still committed to NO.
Note, these issues about people moving and stuff doesn't happen at mine.
Quite simply, todays reality is that most Catholics today see the TLM movement as a means to change again…right NOW. People resist change, as you so righty discussed when the new Mass became the preferred form of devotion. The same losses you describe are thus inevitable if another change were to occur. Devastating results yet again! You made the case for stability.
Only ONE change mattered to me at the time. The language change to ENGLISH finally made the Mass understandable to ME. My dad had learned Latin in the same school that I had attended. BTW I go to adoration on a regular basis to PRAY. Otherwise, thank God that the Mass is finally a wonderful prayer without ignoring the background liturgy.
I don’t think the NO was the “cause” of
the exodus from the Church. However the NO and V2 were not successful in their goal of preventing such exodus due to the massive cultural changes in the West that were happening post WW2. In that sense they have failed. Of course they did not fail in Africa or Asia . This is a western phenomenon
I second this!!
Attendance at Protestant services remained steady around 45% weekly over the same decades that Catholic Mass attendance declined from 80% to 20%... i.e., starting in the '60s... at the same time as Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. It's clearly not just a cultural issue.
Novus Ordo may not have been the cause, but the fact that the Church embraced Modernism, despite warnings from Popes Leo XIII, Pius XI and PiusXII didn't help matters.
@@michaelrex6948 doesn’t explain Africa boom
And Asia
Absolutely correct. It is a Western culture problem, not the NO Mass. New Age gurus, and all that nonsense
People have rejected Jesus and The Church not because of TLM or NO. It was/is personal choice
Don't forget: Adam and Eve walked with God in the Garden, yet they freely chose to disobey and reject God's command.
So too, people reject God and His Church (Catholic Church)
The TLM has been around since 1500's, yet this didnt stop nor prevent Protestantism and the many offshoots of heretical beliefs and apostasy. So you cannot blame the NO Mass.
Thank you so much for , over and over again , dispelling fear and confusion in my soul .
nice talk. Thank you.
JMJ. Thank you for your courage and witness to the Truth. May Our Assumed Queen watch over you!
Is the TLM just a thing in the USA? I live in the Caribbean where we've changed to the novus ordo 57 years ago. This was welcomed by all. Who wants to go back to a foreign language, to a priest whose back is turned to you and to restricted hymn choice. I'm sorry but I think people pushing for TLM have a holier-than-thou attitude with a hint of a superiority complex.
Gregorian chant, Latin, and ad orientem liturgy are not unique to the Tridentine Mass. All of those may be practiced in the new Mass. I also don't quite understand people who push for the Tridentine Mass. I understand why people don't wan't everything in Latin, but I find ad orientem worship to change the focus away from the people and to God. Versus populum serves the people; ad orientem serves God. I find this also to be true with Gregorian Chant. It was developed by the Church to be reverent to God. Secularized music serves to appeal to the taste of the individual. At least, this is what a very young person with minimal experience has observed.
Excellent!
Agreed. Great analysis.
Odd to hear you describe the Anglican Eucharist service as if there was some attempt to design a copy of the Catholic mass... We were once one, then separated. For the vast majority of the people in the pews at the time of the split, the change was not a rebellion or a rejection of anything at all, it was (under 2 separate monarchs, in two separate directions) a choice of going along with what was being done or being burnt at the stake. Most of the people in the pews only wanted peace & quiet with a recognition that people have different understandings and questions (just as in the Orthodox churches). If asked, an abolition of the huge hierarchy above the national / local level, cardinals and Vatican officials etc. soaking up wealth and what was seen as pomp, was seen as a good thing. And the power of the people in the pews is, the clergy do notice when we are unhappily going along with the liturgy being presented. Most did not want that much change, which is why the church services in many but not all Anglican churches seem so similar to the Catholic services.
Actually, it wasn't a matter of choice, it was the law!
Queen Elizabeth I had law passed that every person in England and Wales MUST attend the New Protestant Sunday Service.
Failure to attent meant a heavy fine, that got heavier with non-compliance, further disobedience would result in a jail sentence.
Catholics had to choose between going to the Protestant Service or feeding their families.
Forgive me if I'm getting this wrong, but I remember you saying in an early video you were drawn to Catholicism because of the uniformity of parish priests and bishops following the magisterium as a central authority, while other denominations just kinda winged it. I agree that believers in Christ worldwide should adhere to a central authority and you had a good point. But if there's so much dissention over a topic like this doesn't that show that the adherence and uniformity is missing?
Is there a lack of unity on this issue in the magisterium? Summorum Pontificam granted legal rights for the celebration of the old rite. Pope Francis himself has allowed bishops to decide on the allowance of the old rite in their dioceses. He granted full faculties to the FSSP, ICKSP, IBP among many others.
The only lack of unity is with members of the Novus Ordo parishes unnecessarily criticising the old rite but this does indicate a disunified church. If you want a religion with perfect uniformity of thought on every issue...you might want to try a Soviet style political ideology.
The core of the Mass is the same. The liturgy of the word, the liturgy of the Eucharist and the prayers are all there in both forms. Some prayers may be different, but what they are praying is essentially the same. You can also see the core of the Mass in the writings of Justin Martyr. The songs, prayers, language, etc might be different, but the structure of the Mass is consistent across all rights and forms.
@@amandaslavinski2857 Not exactly. When you compare the Old Mass with the New, there are big differences. The Holy Trinity is invoked in every Collect, Secret, Post Communion, and elsewhere throughout the TLM. Not so in the new. References to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the angels and saints are greatly excised from the new. Other differences abound. The Novus Ordo is a secularized parody of the TLM. Articles abound on the internet comparing the two.
@@amandaslavinski2857 1.) The use of language regarding the roman rite is important. You can no longer say "form" because the current magisterium has rescinded usage of such language. Pope Francis made it clear in TC that the Novus Ordo Missae is the "unique" or "only" rite in the Roman Rite. So we should be calling them the "new rite" and "old rite" in my opinion as this reflects what they are and isn't an exercise in legal fiction. Anyone who knows what constitutes a "rite" will see that the 1962 missal and novus ordo missae cannot be considered the same rite.
2.) Actually this is false. The ordinary of the mass in it's essential parts did change and that is why it wouldn't be proper to consider them the same rite. If they were so similar and nothing was changed, then why did we have a reform to begin with? Such is the absurdity of this argument.
3.) Furthermore, the propers are what made the old rite so theologically sound in it's teaching. A complete overhaul of the propers would constitute a different liturgical celebration in the eyes of most.
That the Novus Ordo Missae is valid is not in contention but to lie to yourself and say they are the same is just absurd. The historicity of the roman rite was maintained in the 1962 missal substantially and the novus ordo missae fundamentally ruptured from the history and tradition and customs of the roman rite.
It simply isn't the same mass and one is far better than the other in a number of different ways.
@@amandaslavinski2857 :
Many, many differences between the prayers of the Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo.
I suggest that you get the two missals and compare them.
It's been noted that the prayers in the N.O. are aimed at the intelligence level of a ten-year-old, and I agree. On the other hand, the N.O. was designed to attract Protestants to the Church, which is rather insulting to the Protestants !
Great video Brian, well done.
My thought for the music is to create new music that is reverent and incorporates chant. And I’ve always wanted the bishops to at least mandate which ordinaries to sing so that’s there’s some uniformity.
In some ways, yes. (Vernacular, increased responses, addition of OT reading, allowance of Chalice)
In some ways, no. (Worse rubrics, aesthetics, and ceremonial rites)
Personally I think the vernacular outweighs the venerable ceremonies of the TLM, so I go to the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
No offense, but it amazes (and saddens) me to see the number of Catholics who reject Church teaching on the Eucharist, that we receive ALL of Jesus in Either species.
Frankly, if the only change was the language spoken, IMO it would be ridiculous to be zealous about the traditional form. But the language spoken by the Priest (or by the "Presider" and lay-readers) is perhaps the LEAST significant change imposed in 1970.
TO each his own, I suppose. For me, praying the Mass along with the Priest, with the aid of my Latin-English Missal, helps me focus on The Lord, and avoid the endless distractions of the Novus Ordo.
@@TomLandry1 I don't reject the Church's teaching. Utraquism is a heresy -- but the reason why allowance of the laity to the chalice is good is because, according to Augustinean theology, the sacraments have outward signs. It is more befitting for the Eucharist to be offered to laity under both of the signs that our Lord instituted it under. This is not to say that we now believe in Utraquism; it's simply saying that it's a fuller expression of the outward sign of the sacrament.
@@aahlstrom93 - Thank you for clarifying! That’s good to hear, AND I got to learn something!
I had to look up the term “Ultraquism”, and thus had the opportunity to learn about the heresies of the Hussites. So thank you.
And I want to apologize for the poor tone of my comments. It’s wrong and I need to work on that.
I respect your right to your opinions. And I’m glad you aren’t engaging in a heresy. (Though I wonder how many Catholics realize this?).
FWIW, I seldom take the Chalice, simply because it’s (almost) never distributed by a Priest. But in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, the Chalice seems to be offered in maybe 10-20% of the N.O. Masses I’ve attended? If I was so inclined, I’d probably be pretty disappointed!!
“At the end of the day”, at least for me, it all comes back to the theology. Perhaps it’s a blessing or maybe it’s a curse, but being a convert, I just can’t “un-see” the Protestant influences in the N.O., Which is why I’ll always desire the TLM.
God Bless You!
@@TomLandry1 No problem, brother. Enjoy the Lord's Day tomorrow.
@@aahlstrom93 :
If you read the Sixteen Documents of Vatican II, you will see that it does not approve of Holy Communion under two species.
Once you allow yourself to be formed the TLM, the NO becomes absolutely shocking and scandalous. When ever I go to the NO I'm constantly aghast how irreverent, corny and prot it is.
True 😊
If available, try Divine Worship by the Catholic Ordinariate, in beautiful high church English. THIS should be the new(old) Mass!! 🤗
People were very relaxed,casual and friendly so were the priests at the last NO I attended last month. Service was packed on a Saturday night. When we got to the standing "handing out" of the Body of Christ by "ushers" hastily assembled due to the large number of attendees. In the hand like a ritz cracker! Very irreverent. Noisy etc..
Not true. I've done it.
Must be only in America. In my country the NO Mass is beautiful and we have many people coming to RCIA to become Catholic.
I've got to be honest- I'm going to take the other side of the debate which few (if any) seem to be taking. I like the NO. I've been a devout Catholic for about 11 years now, and I became devout through the NO. There are things about it I wish were done more reverently: music, only priests & deacons distributing communion, reception of Eucharist on tongue, and more respectful dress. I'm 25, and I would consider myself "Trad" but in the sense that I actually desire to be a devout Catholic. However, I find that I am actually able to enter into prayer significantly more at NO. Since I'm fluent in English, I can focus on what's being said and meditate on it in a way that I never will be able to in Latin. My husband and I went to Latin Mass for a while, but I was actually more content when we returned to NO because I was actually able to understand what was going on. Even if I became *fluent* in Latin, I would not be able to meditate as well as I can when I hear something in my native tongue. Maybe I'll change my mind someday, but I really missed NO when I went to the Latin Mass.
I am 63 years old and have never attended a latin mass in my life because there is no latin masses in my area.I dont even know where to find one in Southern Alberta. With the reverence and tradition that is present in the latin mass I would love to go to one.
I hope you find one soon.
On the internet the best I could find is the TLM in Calgary, but if it's too far from you maybe you could call them and ask if they know of any other places in Southern Alberta.
Do we know that most of the people leaving the Church shortly after VC II was due to the liturgical reforms and not something else?
Ya, I haven't seen any evidence presented for that. It seems much more likely that it was due to the social revolution of the time. It is possible that retaining an esoteric liturgy would have served as a bulwark against cultural assimilation, but we'll never know.
I’m sure there are many factors, but when the suppsoed purpose of VII was the “open wide the doors of the Church” to the world, and massive conversions and flooding INTO the church was predicted, and yet the reality was a mass exodus… it certainly didn’t achieve its purpose. Also I believe there’s a infographic that shows the rate of decline of various Christian churches during that time period and the Catholic Church had a much more severe decline. At a time when the world needed us the most, we watered it down and went along with the rest of the world. Something to consider (from someone who spent the last several years making this exact argument to any traditional Catholic who dared to speak Ill of VII)
They left bc the theology used to teach that priests nuns and religious had a higher place in heaven, but once that was changed many left
@@CedarSam Why do you think that’s “much more likely”?
The TLM has been around since 1500's, yet this didn't stop nor prevent Protestantism and the many offshoots of heretical beliefs and apostasy.
All those over 40,000 different separated non-catholic churches originated during the era when the TLM was the only Mass then.
So you cannot blame the NO Mass.
Thank you so much for your videos Brian!
You are very intelligent and thoughtful.
I would not say that only the liturgical change led to the abandonment of the faithful and religious (priests, nuns, bishops...), but rather a whole process that involved changing customs in order to somehow make a change in mentality and therefore in doctrine.
I definitely agree that this is a topic worth discussing, so I'll do that! I apologize in advance for the length and my maniacal need to explain myself carefully.
First, my disagreements (merely technical):
- It's not entirely accurate that the Tridentine Form was strictly codified. When you read Quo Primum, it's evident that the Missal was also entrusted to a team of experts ("learned men of our selection"), was also revised and restored ("they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers"), and was also promulgated pretty quickly ("We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible..."). It's all there in §§ 1 and 2.
- It's also not entirely accurate that the Pauline Form had no Magisterial backing behind it. However much influence Fr. Bugnini wielded over the revisions (which is debatable to say the least), the revised rite itself was nonetheless approved by the commission and officially promulgated by Pope St. Paul VI in Missale Romanum. Even Cardinal Ottaviani went on to state that all the concerns outlined in the Short Critical Study had been satisfied, and that “no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized.”
- Speaking of Bugnini, you (and many others do as well, so necessarily I don't blame you for this) misrepresented Bugnini's quote about "stumbling blocks"; in fact, those two words are nowhere in the original quote. The entire quote, from L’Osservatore Romano (dated March 19, 1965), makes it clear that he was referring strictly to the reformulation of the Good Friday intentions for protestants, not the overall reform.
With all that said, as someone who is really dissatisfied with many of the current liturgical practices in the United States, I sympathize with much of what you're saying. In many cases, I've seen dispassionate, get-it-over-with liturgies (which seem to be the vast majority), or liturgies treated like a product marked by out-of-touch marketers desperately trying to prove how "hip" they are (which, while relatively rare, still grate on my nerves). It's very little wonder that so many of us have grown frustrated with having to bear patiently (Colossians 3:13) with so many liturgists who hate being questioned or challenged about it. And I absolutely agree that, while we cannot go back on liturgical reform, we should at the very least have the conversation about why liturgical reform has been substituted in the Western world with vanity projects and thus prevented the Pauline Form from bearing the fruit it could, and still can.
In the meantime though, my going to the Pauline Form, the liturgy the Church has seen fit to use in the Roman Rite, and bearing patiently and obediently nonetheless with these annoyances has resulted in some unexpected spiritual fruit and graces. Perhaps there's something to be said for balancing patience and obedience with making a very compelling case for the course correction we need in the West.
550 million catholics in 1970.
1.3 billion in 2020.
Trust in the holy spirit. .
GOD wins always and at all times.
The gates of hell will not prevail, is not a suggestion. It was and is a fact.
Trust in Jesus because he is in charge of his body the church.
To start a rational and stable mind discussion, I believe it would be important first to evolve from rigid views, the obsession for the form of the rite, the cult of latin, the ideological use of the vetus ordo for political battles.
Some comments on the things you said:
1. The topic is not taboo. Honestly, what you described (members of the clergy advising you against talking about this topic) sounds so surreal to me. Plenty of channels on youtube, books, discussions about this very subject. Actually my impression is that there are more discussions about that than people that really are interested.
2. You try to make the viewers empathize with the situation of people that experienced the change of the mass rite, and why a minority felt that that was not acceptable and took the decision to leave the church. A great cost that must have some benefit for the church (a lot was done to try to keep them, to the point popes were even criticized for being too soft). Then, to be fair, you should also talk about the many that before the reform took place felt the old rite was just so far from their culture, and the many who couldn’t really participate and understand the rite. How they felt marginalized, unheard, unimportant. How many of them would have probably left the church simply because they couldn’t benefit from full participation to the mass and felt the church was not really interested in them. Losing priests was a cost, yes, on the other hand it couldn’t be allowed that a relatively small minority opposing the change could dictate the direction of the whole church.
3. The two rites are equal in value (the mass is the mass; if you take the first Eucharistic prayer in the novus ordo you will see that the structure is exactly the same of the vetus ordo). Being equal in value does not mean one is not to be preferred today, a liturgy that better served its purpose, finally universal and not anymore solely expression of a local church. In 200 years it might be the liturgy will be very different and the decision to make major changes will be made in a short period of time and again by specialists.
4. Before Saint Pius V gave the great universal rite to the church, there were many rites, nearly every religious congregation had its own. The mass varied even between abbeys belonging to the same congregation!
5. I am not sure what to say about your reconstruction of how the reform of liturgy happened. So there was this shady person, kind of cardinal Richelieu that fooled everyone, including the pope. I don’t know, I find it hard to believe (and maybe even a bit offensive to the memory of the pope Saint Paul VI and the fathers of the Vatican II), that the pope was so naïve, easy inexperienced and deceived for so long, and the members of the consilium so easy to manipulate. And the pope and all the popes that came after the reform, once the evil plot of this Bugnini was revealed, no one attempted or was able to do anything to repair the damage… It sounds more that someone wants to throw some discredit and delegitimate the reform (and some others decided to believe that).
Totally agreed with just about everything you said. The liturgical warfare between NO and the EF is an embarrassing example of how disconnected the 1st world church in US and Canada are from the rest of the world. Any appeals to 'oppression from Rome' is not going to emotionally sway me either, as I'm Byzantine, and all too familiar with overreach by Roman clergy having been a reality. Pope Francis had a very clumsy and ineffective attempt to deal with a very real problem in the EF congregations in the US and Canada. The problem is that he attacked the liturgy in a way that was unnecessary and ineffective. The problems in the church today are usually at the pastoral or congressional level.
As always... Very, very good.
What is that French sounding word you are using about the 2 guys wearing the same outfit??
If people and religious left the Church due to the changes that were ushered in by a valid council, promulgated by Popes and the ongoing Magisterium, the question that should be asked is how deep was their faith in the Apostolic Church established by Jesus on Peter to begin with?
This is a strawman that does not work when you consider things like the Great Schism. The problem is not a lack of faith, the problem is lack of clarity. When you pull a rug out from under someone, it causes many to question whether the ground they stood on was solid.
These people fell away not because they did not believe in Christ, but rather because Satan was able to convince them that the Church was not Christ’s. Do not judge their reasons, pray for them. They left because they were hurt, not because they wanted to abandon Christ.
@@juice2307 No, I think it's a reasonable question. One either believes the Church is true or it's not - whether flat out rejection or skepticism.
I would say the SSPX have the best answer for that, I think it comes down to that v2 was a pastoral not a doctrinal council.
@@juice2307 Only if you think the changes ushered in under V2 (even if not directly by V2, which was part of Brian's point), are schism-worthy. That one should leave the faith established by Jesus with Peter because certain accidents surrounding the celebration of the mass were changed by a valid council of the Church. If so, again, I'd look at the depth of the person's faith of anyone who would leave the Barque of Christ for that reason.
@@juice2307 And yes of course we pray for anyone outside the Church. For whatever reason they leave or choose not to join. It's our job to re-evangelize them thru love. We don't always do a great job, but they have a role in it too. Pride plays a part on both sides.
The question to ask is: What are people finding in the Old Mass that they are not finding in the New Mass?
Genuine & prominent traditional piety & reverence.
Truth instead of fake. The practices and form of mass must stay exactly as they were set by Godly authority and no one has the right to change them, unless you want to be a heretic Protestant
@@drjanitor3747 Not for you, Protestant of the Novus Ordo)))
Christ.
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 Yes, they don't seem to understand the difference between a true holy pure mass, and a protestant clown show
Thank you
There's an on-going discussion of whether or not the earth is flat and some mainstream people are trying to shut the discussion down by making it taboo but I think it's a good discussion to have because discussions are good to have specifically when a consensus has been made and people want to move on, the fact that they want to move on because they believe the truth has been reached regarding a certain subject is actually a sign we need to go back and continue to debate it
No.
No
If they had kept the 1965 interim missal. Kept latin in the liturgy with vernacular. Left the Sanctuary as was. That would have been the best choice.
This discourse seems to be more of a Western phenomenon, and that again something held more in North America. Here in Austria we have both forms more or less in harmony, at least that is my perception. My parents home country the Philippines, the Novus Ordo is basically the norm, but there are also Latin Masses.
I think you should talk to Fr. Blake Britton - he delved into this matter quite deeply.
A must-read is the Spirit of the Liturgy by Pope Benedict XVI, where he gives great insight on the Essence of the Mass, the issues following Vatican II - misinterpretations of the Novus Ordo and so much more.
Sounds like a helpful approach. The Church of England has had the good sense to keep the 1662 Prayer Book services available as well as more modern versions.
I love the Latin mass from my youth and I love the NO Mass today . if we truly understand the Mass it does not matter
Speaking as an Orthodox Christian we don't have multiple types of liturgies. We have the Divine Liturgy that is celebrated throughout the world in all Orthodox Churches and monasteries. The Divine Liturgy is preceded by several services, the most prominent of which is Orthros/Matins. Thank God the worship of the Church is not up for debate or change☦️
1:10 People only let you question the church from the right, not the left. Not saying you’re wrong on this topic, it’s just weird that “traditionalists” are usually given leeway to question the church establishment while progressives are not
I still go to NO. And it’s always revenant.
*reverent
Changes in the liturgy is not why people left. There is plenty of research that shows it has to do with materialism and the belief that religion is not "scientific". At 10 years old I welcomed the changes as did my parents and older siblings. I left because I found the church unresponsive to my needs. I prefer Anglicanism but they have gone woke. So I attend both a Protestant service and a Catholic mass every Sunday.
In my experience of several parishes, about a third of the congregation would leave with a weeks of a change from NO Latin to NO ICEL English. They would go to adjacent parishes where Latin was still used. Eventually there was nowhere left to take refuge. This was in the 1970s. Interest in the TLM did not develop until well into the 1980s.
you must be very confused then
more study is my advice
@@depARTmentUhaul I am not confused. Why insult me?
It’s not a one size fits all. There are many reasons why people left the Faith. However the Latin Mass teaches the Faith better. . . People had a deeper sense of the meaning of the Holy Sacrifice of Mass and believed in the true presents of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament even if they didn’t understand Latin or what was happening. The Mystery of the Mass was intact. Besides the “New Mass” took out something like 80% of the prayer’s. Leaving us with a deficient Mass. less Grace = Less Faith.
@@margaretwandel5660 suggesting you are confused is not insulting you. Saying you need more study isn't either. Even if the mass you go to is dry or more new than any should be, it's a mass. The eucharist is what the Bible dictates we need, the rest is fluff. You, as a Catholic, should know there is no protestant church that can offer the Eucharist. Like it or not, we are not like protestants, our prayers are for them to come to the True Church, by going to worship there, you are giving approval to their ways and dismissing Jesus in the Eucharist.
Non of that is to insult you, it's because I care enough to try to guide you to save your soul.
I live in Brampton and I wanna ask anyone who knows a TLM I can go to. Somewhere in Mississauga is fine too because I used to live there.
Please visit an Orthodox Divine Liturgy!
Good points
i prefer the new mass
This succinct video is one of the best I've seen on the design of the Novus Ordo.
In a respectful manner, we should write and ask our Cardinals, Bishops and Priests to defend VII by defending Sacrosanctum Concilium…and not the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II.”