On his excellent blog, Traditional Catholic Priest, Fr. Peter Carota recently posted an entry, “Latin Mass and Novus Ordo Mass Consecration Formula,” in which he offers a comparison of the relevant texts.
After highlighting a number of apparently superfluous changes that were made in producing the new text, he then asks readers to ponder the question, “Why was this needed after hundreds and hundreds of years?”
The answer to Father’s deliberately loaded question can be summed up in one word, ecumenism; in other words, the changes were not truly needed at all.
Though the Second Vatican Council, properly speaking, did not produce the new missal, the reformers who did so approached their work with a mindset similar to that of the Council’s most influential voices.
If one takes the time to explore the driving force behind the conciliar debates in the words of the very men most responsible for crafting the Council documents (for which purpose I highly recommend the book by Professor Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: An unwritten story), the one theme that emerges more than any other is the desire to make nearly every phrase as palatable as possible to the protestants.
In the case of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the Council was rather plainspoken about its ecumenical aim as it relates to the process of liturgical reform:
This sacred Council desires … to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. (SC 1)
So, how did fiddling with the Canon of the Mass serve this particular end?
Before we take a closer look at specific text, it is necessary to recognize that one of the primary points of liturgical discomfort for the protestant stems from a rejection of the sacramental priesthood as understood by the Church, and likewise, the sacrificial nature of Holy Mass.
This is what led to the wholesale removal of the Offertory from the new rite, a topic treated in some detail here.
Furthermore, we must realize that the protestant worship service is truly nothing more than a gathering of laity. As such, any liturgical actions undertaken therein are ultimately communitarian in nature, with the “minister” being just another layman who acts as presider.
To put this in perspective, consider just how pointless it would be for a protestant minister to deliver a sermon, or for a mega-church house band to rock some religious tunes, in an empty auditorium. Other than sharpening their performance skills for a later date, it would be of no use to the community.
By contrast, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is beneficial for the Body of Christ whether the community gathers or not since the offering is nothing less than the one Sacrifice of Christ offered through the priest who acts in persona Christi.
Well aware of the protestant mindset (and with ready access to protestant “observers” just in case any clarification was necessary), the liturgical reformers deliberately went about diminishing the role of the priest while accentuating the role of the community.
An excerpt from a 1984 document of German Bishops’ Conference underscores this point:
The main difference between the pre-Conciliar and the renewed Order of Mass is perhaps made clear in the most simple way by the first words that begin each Order. The Tridentine Order of Mass begins with the words, “Sacerdos paratus,” i.e., “The priest being vested.” The renewed Order of Mass begins with the words, “Populo congregato,” i.e., “When the people have gathered.” From this it is clear that the weight of the old rite of Mass lay exclusively in the action of the celebrant; the renewed Order of Mass puts the common action of the People of God at the forefront, within which the celebrant fulfils an essential function which cannot be infringed upon. From this internal difference proceeds most of the external differences in the two Orders.
This shift in weight is well reflected in the simple fact that where the words of consecration are spoken inaudibly by the priest in the traditional rite, as he stands at the head of the assembly facing the Lord along with the people as if to lead them, in the Novus Ordo, the new words are spoken aloud by a priest who is typically facing the people as if to serve the community.
Now, let’s take a closer look at just some of the text in the Canon of the Mass, starting with the consecration of the Precious Blood, which in the traditional rite reads:
Take, and drink ye all of this; for this is the Chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament, the Mystery of Faith; which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.
In the Novus Ordo the text is rendered:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the Chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.
The shift in focus on display here is at once subtle, and yet substantial.
First, notice that the new rite substitutes “covenant” for testament, the latter having a number of meanings.
Among other things, “testament” can mean tangible proof or evidence, a law, and also a covenant between God and humanity.
In the present case, all of these things apply in some sense, but the protestant mind necessarily struggles to recognize the Chalice at Holy Mass as the Lord’s Precious Blood tangibly present. The idea that the prayer refers only to the “covenant,” something that properly speaking cannot be seen but only symbolized, as in the case of a wedding ring perhaps, is a bit easier for the heretics to accept.
Furthermore, one notices that the Precious Blood is no longer said to be “shed,” a word that calls to mind the immolation on Calvary, the same made present at Holy Mass in a bloodless manner; rather, it is “poured out” in the new rite, as one might imagine taking place during a communal meal wherein wine is served by the presider.
Likewise, we see that the purpose being expressed in the consecration is no longer said to be the “remission of sins,” a phrase that reflects the truly propitiatory nature of the Holy Sacrifice on the altar (i.e., it is offered in order to satisfy the debt incurred by man’s sin); rather, it is said to be for the “forgiveness of sins,” a more comfortable idea for the protestant who is convinced that he who is “once saved, is always saved,” and therefore imagines the entire affair to be merely symbolic of the forgiveness he has already received, covering even future sins as well.
Again, we are at this point considering mere subtleties, but for the protestant who is hyper-sensitive to that which communicates the reality of Holy Mass as true Sacrifice, they are substantial.
In his blog post, Fr. Carota highlights the words “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration, pointing out that they are moved to another part of the new rite.
Not only are they moved, the Novus Ordo demands a response on the part of the faithful (e.g., “We proclaim your Death, O’ Lord, and profess your resurrection until you come again”), as if such is necessary in order to in some sense “complete” the thought.
In other words, where the priest alone speaks the words, “Mystery of faith,” as part of the traditional consecration of the Precious Blood, thereby calling to mind the mystery of redemption that is carried out by Christ in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the fabricators of the new rite saw fit to subject the text to a “cut-n-paste” operation in order to afford the community an opportunity to chime in with its response.
The desire to create the false impression that the Mass is “the common action of the People of God,” as the German bishops described it, is no more evident than at that part of the new rite commonly called the “Great Amen.”
In the traditional Mass of the Roman Rite, while (according to the rubrics) “holding the Host in his right hand and the chalice in his left, he makes the Sign of the Cross five times over the chalice,” the priest prays silently while facing the High Altar:
Through Him +, and with Him +, and in Him +, is unto Thee, God the Father + Almighty, in the unity of the Holy + Ghost…
Then, while “Lifting up the chalice a little with the host,” he says, also silently, “all honor and glory.”
This latter gesture is known in the traditional rite as the “minor elevation,” and it is such that the Host and Chalice are not seen by the assembly.
Finally, the priest in the traditional rite returns the Host back to the paten, covers the chalice, genuflects, rises, and prays aloud, “For ever and ever,” to which the response is given, “Amen.”
In the new rite, the “minor elevation” is treated as anything but, as it is often quite grand as the priest prays (and frequently chants) aloud:
Through Him, and with Him, and in Him, O’ God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, for ever and ever…
To which the people offer the so-called “Great Amen.”
In the 1972 USCCB document, “Music in Catholic Worship” the bishops encourage the “Amen” to be magnified, saying:
The worshipers assent to the Eucharistic prayer and make it their own in the Great Amen. To be most effective, the Amen may be repeated or augmented. Choirs may harmonize and expand upon the people’s acclamation.
As a result of this artificially inflated “Amen,” one gets the impression that the community plays a crucial role in completing the offering itself; a concept that although false, is far more agreeable to the protestant than anything that might hint at what is actually taking place.
In the traditional Mass, the people’s relationship to the offering is most certainly addressed, but it is made far more explicitly clear, among other places, in that part of the Canon just after the consecration of the Precious Blood when the priest silently prays:
Wherefore, O Lord, we thy servants, as also thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed passion of the same Christ thy Son our Lord, and also his rising up from hell, and his glorious ascension into heaven, do offer unto thy most excellent majesty, of thine own gifts bestowed upon us, a pure victim, a holy victim, a spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life, and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.
Yes, the Host and Precious Blood are indeed an offering of the Lord’s entire “holy people,” but it is offered by the priest who alone can offer the perfect Victim in persona Christi.
Properly speaking, it isn’t so much Fr. Joe who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; it is Christ Himself who makes this perfect offering through the priest. Much less is it a common action of the community; rather, the baptized are privileged to enter into the Holy Sacrifice through, with, and in Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Cited herein are but a handful of the ecumenically motivated changes that were made to the Mass by a committee of so-called “experts” after Vatican II, all with the approval of Pope Paul VI.
More than forty years later, what have we to show for it?
Little more than an impoverished rite wherein Protestants can feel right at home, and several generations of confused Catholics who lack any meaningful sense of the sacred after having been deprived of their rightful liturgical inheritance.
What was done to the liturgy was nothing less than diabolical. A mass that has grown organically for over 1600 years, now in no less than 50 years most never even know that it’s the true mass of the church. I can see his filthy hooves all over this. And now they want to canonize Paul VI. I don’t want to sound less than Christ like, but the people that did this, deserve to be burned at the stake for this crime agsinst God and man.
Mr. V. OUTSTANDING POST.
Furthermore, I would highly recommend the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/user/WorkofHumanHands?feature=mhee
It is by far the best work on this subject matter that I have ever come across. And the videos are hilarious.
The link contains the trailers for Fr. Anthony Cekada’s book “Work of Human Hands”. He critiques each part of the N.O protestantized liturgy, and lays out the modus operandi used by the forces of evil to destroy our Catholic patrimony. Truly a HATE CRIME if ever there was one, and the root cause of this 50 year disaster that will be known in the annals of Catholic history as the age of Great Chastisement.
PS Another W in the Win column. Link here:http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/01/event-feb-9-1st-traditional-mass-in-mit.html.
At MIT no less. 😉
Louie: One thing that my wife and I notice about the most striking difference for us between the LM and NO is the Consecration prayer.
In the Tridentine, the priest, in order to ensure God’s blessing upon the Bread and Wine to become the Body and Blood uses an invocation to the Holy Ghost in what was known, we believe, as the “Veni Sanctifcator.”
“Come, Thou Sanctifier, almighty and eternal God, and bless this Sacrifice prepared for the glory of Thy Holy Name.” (Priest consecrates Bread and Wine.)
We do not believe these words are used at all in the current NO.
In this, our concern then forces one to question the validity of the NO Consecration if the priest is not asking God to bless the Sacrifice correctly.
Finally, the other outrageously important difference for us between the two is that in the LM the priest constantly refers to himself as a sinner unworthy of offering the Sacrifice to God; i.e., when he kisses the stone of the Altar approaching God and praying: “We beseech Thee, O Lord, by the merits of Thy Saints whose relics lie here, and of all the Saints, deign in Thy mercy to pardon me all my sins. Amen.”
There are many other such pleas. Considering the state of the priesthood today, one, as a believer, should be encouraging priests to retain these prayers.
Priests need to think, as you point out, the shift of weight here.
And thank you for having the courage to continually do so is such chaotic times.
If anything, making the Mass more like the protestant service confirms them in their position: ”See, we’re really just the same!”
It seems Pooh Bear–that that is what our Pope believes–we are the same as protestants….
Among the things that bother me the most in the novus ordo is “the mystery of faith” which has several possible responses to the definite article. THE Mystery of Faith was in the Consecration and thus the Real Presence of Christ but now it is just a ‘proclamation’ of the faithful.
And the glad handing with each other when Christ is present on the altar and we should be preparing our hearts for Holy Communion is an option that I wish would go away.
Of course, then there are the banal songs that praise ‘us’.
Sigh.
Who can deny, that the Catholic cult has become, little by little, a neo-protestant cult………especially, the ‘protestantization’ of the new order through the actions of John Paul II, a true follower of Paul VI……The New mass, a new theology of the Sacraments, a new catechism, a new Code of Canon Law, new concordats……..is a new religion being installed?
‘Lex orandi, lex credenti.’ This celebrated adage attributed to Pope St.Celestine I, has been repeated often, particularly by Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII. It means that the law of prayer determines the law of belief. It was modifying the liturgy of the Mass that Luther and Cranmer led astray and into Protestantism, entire populations that still considered themselves Catholic. It happening in the same way at present, but on a much greater scale. We are sadly witnessing, since the 60’s, that the Mass has been evolving and blending with the Protestant Last Supper.
Why the Protestant Last Supper? ‘Simply because this is the easy way Protestantism is more convenient, less demanding, more respectable than Catholicism. It is also closer to democratic ideas, at present so dominant, and which are largely issues of the reformation by way of, in particular, Freemasonry.’
The best proof of this ‘protestantization’ of the Mass is the communiqué published by Brother Max Thurian of Taize in 1969: “Non-catholic communities are able to celebrate the Last Supper even with the priests of the Catholic Church. Theologically, it is possible.”
One may note that this possibility did not exist with the traditional Mass, because it is the reflection of Catholic theology.
It is the victory of Luther, that the Offertory which he so loathed, because it so admirably spoke of sacrifice and propitiation, is purely and simply suppressed…….(from “Peter, Lovest Thou Me? by Abbe Daniel Le Roux).
……”Echoing the Popes before the 1960’s, who foretold the disasters that would come upon the Church if their warnings were not listened to and their condemnations not heeded, and echoing the prophecies of Our Lady of La Salette and Fatima, let us strive to re-establish the Church upon the eternal principles taught by the Magisterium for nearly twenty centuries, rejecting the errors of the Liberal Modernist Revolution, even when these errors may be endorsed by those who occupy the See of Peter”……+Marcel Lefebvre, Econe 1988
Thank you for this article, Louie.
–
the great evil of the NO is the deliberate dissembling/obfuscation of the Holy Sacrifice. it is a Mass that shrinks from confessing Our Eucharistic Lord.the NO is presider and pewpeople writ large. in the TLM the crucifix above the Tabernacle seems to reach down through the vertical arm of the cross on the back of the Priest’s chasuble.the ‘gathering of the laity’ seems to be what most Catholics think the Mass is. the NO elevates the ‘faithful’
–
the assemblers, and re-assigns Our Lord to the level of the ‘natural’ – that is, not supernatural.
–
on mundabors blog the way Bishop Bergoglio presents himself is a nice comparison for the way the new church presents itself with regards to the ‘background’ of the Faith.
–
http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/rolling-shoe/
–
‘and again, that Francis keeps a simple background in order for him to shine the more in the foreground escapes the brilliant minds of “Rolling Stone”, of whom it can safely say that the dope hasn’t really improved their analytical faculties.’
p.s. of interest – this article, after looking at the Indiana possession case, there is a look at why satanists don’t bother stealing hosts from protestant churches. the committed satanist can pick a host consecrated at Catholic Mass out of a line up of otherwise protestant laity blessed bread every time – they know which one is Christ because of the instant hate for this single particular little ‘piece of bread’. if only Catholics had an equal and opposite love for the Real Presence.
–
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/01/satan-is-real-read-these-amazing-stories.html
It is my understanding that NO priests do not “celebrate” private “masses” because this “mass” needs the validation and affirmation of a congregation. That is why the two genuflections were removed —one immediately following the consecration of the Sacred Host–the other immediately after the consecration of the Precious Blood. The priest only genuflects (or bows, if you’re lucky) after the affirmation of the people.
I welcome comments on this if my understanding is incorrect.
@catholicmilitant. the NO GIRM calls the priest the ‘principal celebrant’. I guess this might infer that he cannot celebrate in the absence of minor celebrants. the NO also recommends more and more, but wait there’s even more, ‘ministers’.
The liturgy is a catechesis. Anything that appears in the liturgical rites of the Church, a Roman or Papal office or Mass, is officially approved Christian doctrine. Pope Pius XI is quoted as saying that the liturgy is the most important instrument of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, all of Catholic prayer and devotion is based upon the Church’s understanding of revealed truth. As we believe, so shall we pray. Because it is a profession of Catholic faith, the liturgy is a theological source. The traditional Latin Mass possessed what is called “universality of character.” It alone possessed the attributes of “always, everywhere, by all” that was necessary for liturgical infallibility. Then it was struck down in 1969 by Pope Paul VI and replaced with a false and heretical liturgy. Those who resisted — Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X — were cut off and excommunicated. Welcome to the revolution against the Churches Militant and Triumphant, a revolution that began, on a grand open scale, on the Eve of All Saints Day in 1917.
Well, one consolation I supppose – if satanists are still stealing consecrated Hosts for N.O. masses, at least someone still believes in the real presence at NO masses.
Catholic Militant, IIRC at the N.O. in my parish, the priest genuflects after consecration/elevation of each species. So he consecrates then elevates the Host, then genuflects. He consecrates then elevates the Chalice, then genuflects.
A liturgical revolution is a doctrinal revolution.
Well, Mr. v,–if there was such a thing as trad post traumatic stress syndrome–i have it and this post caused a relapse. The crush of my conversion in early 1980’s revisited-realizing that the Mass that I’d been exposed to in childhood was gone.
I think this posting of yours required courage of you. Important , I think, to point out the the flaws {if it is appropo to use such a benign term,} still exist even if the NO is celebrated “ad orientum.”
The NO even , if you will, “ad o,” changes a man.
So we must face it that satan’s main goal is to destroy the priesthood. We have stand-up comedians by the thousands, lobbyists too. Even the current Pontiff is preparing an encyclical on the environment.
This comment is not meant to imply disparagement upon the holy priesthood in any way , which I deeply honor and love., or on any particular priest. Just to recall a time when there was always a priest in the confessional when you entered a Catholic church, and related things. Related things which are the result of the destruction caused by the NO.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, obscure servant missionary and sound shepherd gatherer of lost sheep, pray for us.
Linda – I agree, the NO changes people, redirects faith and obscures Truth. I truly believe it will die out.
–
one worthwhile thing JPII said was, ”ideologies of evil have the seeds of their destruction within them’ – in this case I really believe the NO has the seeds of its own destruction within it – I believe this and believe that the TLM is how we are supposed to worship.
–
p.s.c.matt said: ‘Well, one consolation I supppose – if satanists are still stealing consecrated Hosts for N.O. masses, at least someone still believes in the real presence at NO masses.’
–
it might be naughty of me but I did LOL. God bless for the chuckle.
Theological controversy has always existed in the Church, often bitter and divisive. It has always been kept out of the form of the Mass, which since the time of St Gregory the Great has developed slowly in Continuity according to deepening understanding.
Something profoundly different has happened with the New Mass. That on-going conflict of understanding has been brought into the liturgy, particularly of the Mass.
You present the changes as “ecumenism” and many so intended them. But there was a deeper intention on the part of many Reformers. The New Mass is a valid Mass. However, the “Protestantisation” of the Catholic New Mass, ensures that it is now, in form, effectively indistinguishable from a protestant communion service. This is but a stage on the way to the real goal of the Reformers, which is to Relativise the inherent meaning of the Mass.
The Mass as a Sacrifice, the Real Presence, and the Ordained Priesthood were, and are, their immediate targets. Get rid of those and you have not only “Protestantised” the Mass, you have effectively dissolved Catholicism, making it just another changing appreciation of the presence of some vague “Spirit” and reducing Christ to just another of the many prophets.
That was and is their real Goal. It is fashionable with some in the Church to downplay St Pius X. But it is clear, more than ever today that he was right. The “Synthesis of all Heresies” is still at work in the Church.
Maybe these excellent books are well-known, but I’ll mention them just in case: for a concise history of the devastation of the Mass, Michael Davies’ trilogy, Liturgical Revolution, cannot be topped. In volume 1, Cranmer’s Godly Order, he showed the parallels between the protestant reformation and the institution of the NO. Volume 2, Pope John’s Council, of course explains the highjacking of that unnecessary council. Volume 3 gives a thourough history of the development of the NO. These are big, detailed books involving tremendous research, and he had links and quotes for every detail.
These were essential reading in the 80s and 90s to help the fledgling Trad movement gain momentum. Mr. Davies was also a cheerful, witty public speaker and my family had the pleasure of seeing him speak, and visiting with him, on many occasions.
He died of cancer in 2004, and the Trad movement lost a real hero, but heaven would certainly be a cheerier place (can I say that?) on his arrival. RIP.
dear Jacobi, like so many brethren here, your comment is an act of courage. I do not know what I would do without you strong , informed and brilliant yet humble Catholics to witness to me.
dear Mary K., thank you for saying these things. Michael Davies was a most gentle man and helped me with my young children in those fledgling years. He and Malachi Martin bore beautiful Catholic witness to my young children also. My heart goes out to you for mentioning the things you did.
May the peace of Christ, a peace unlike the peace of this world, be to you dear and strong Catholics.
Archbishop Lefebvre, pray for us.
The whole plan to appease the Protestants also was a misunderstanding of where Protestantism was going. Even in 1962-69, it was clear that the Protestantism the bishops knew best — of the austere Calvinists, Bach-suffused Lutherans, or high-church Anglicans — was declining. The prelates should have opened their eyes and seen that the Rev. Billy Graham “Crusades” and the Rev. Robert Shuller’s sunny California drive-in church were the future of Protestantism, with even a minimal liturgy replaced by a guy in a suit holding a Bible in his hand and expounding. The bishops and popes Protestantized the Mass for nothing.
John,
That which you describe in your last post, pertaining to the “protestantization” of the Mass by the VII crowd, I fully agree with. In my humble opinion, the reason the modernizers chose the Anglican High Church/austere Calvinist strain was due to the fact that they were the only forms that these folks knew at the time they got involved. Keep in mind that the liturgical movement was hammering away at the Mass for 50 years by the time VII came about. One could say that these folks were stuck in a certain point in time (early 20th century). By the time VII came about, time had moved on, but these people had not. And the reforms they instituted in the conciliar documents in the early 60’s were far past their usage date. And once the modernists realized just how far time had moved on, they started heaping novelties on top of novelties in order to catch up with the times. And they caught up to the late ’60s when time stopped again. If the above is a correct assessment of the modernization process, it would go a long way in explaining why Paul VI had such reservations about the final product that was presented to him in 1968. And it would go a long way in explaining why Bugnini was subsequently exiled to Iran. But I digress.
So where does that leave us? Actually in the same place as in 1962. The N.O. is a product stuck in the ’60s, and the new modernists led by the bishop of Rome want to bring the liturgy into the next millennium. And what is their point of reference? The evangelical protestants whose time lapsed in the mid 1980’s. So now we will go through the same pointless exercise only to realize in a couple years time that the modernists got it wrong again. And then rinse and repeat. What I find quite ironical about the modernizers, is that these are the same people who told/tell us that modern man needs modern answers from a modern reinterpretation of the Gospel, yet they are continuously behind the curve.
John and S Armaticus, well said. I would not have thought of it that way, but it is so true! I have brothers who left the Church in the 70s to be ‘saved’, and their whole lives have been spent as minor versions of the TV preachers and raising their poor children to do the same (save the Mexicans, Russians, English, Irish, wherever…) their main jobs have been as ‘preachers’. They have always held dearly to saving Central and South Americans by way of movies, songs and puppet shows (yes—they’re BIG on puppet shows) to help them escape the last vestiges of Catholicism in those countries. It would make perfect sense that that is the desired approach of our B of Rome. It does not matter to my brothers if people contracept or divorce, but gradually, with enough ‘love’ and prayer meetings wherein the ‘preacher’ deciphers select lines of scripture, they may give up those faults. It gives me a new lens through which to view our situation.
Linda, it is comforting to know that others remember Mr. Davies. He was, I’m sure, a great example to my now grown sons.
BTW, like another writer, Barbara I think, I can’t scroll up to check for errors of grammar or punctuation or just clumsy wording, so I apologize ahead of posting. 😉
Interestingly, the missal of the Mass of Paul VI (the Novus Ordo Missae) affirms in black and white, in section #7 of the Introduction, the meaning of the Mass (it is the sacrifice of Calvary) and the Real Presence (it is the body of Christ). And yes, without weightier evidence, we must assume that the modern Mass is valid. It will be interesting to see how the saboteurs can get rid of the idea of the Real Sacrifice and Real Presence and effectively dissolve Catholicism when the published evidence remains.
This time last year I knew nothing about the TLM. I attended NO Mass faithfully on a Sunday and during the week if possible but for years I was feeling unhappy about it,moving from Parish to Parish to try and find a Mass that was reverent. Where talking before during and afte rMass was not the norm. Where the priest wasn’t giving us a joke before the final blessing or encouraging the congregation to join in parts of the Eucharistic prayer that were not meant to be said by them. You all know what I mean. The relentless ‘hello everyone’ when they come out of the sacristy. The fussing over people’s kids and telling us all who’s birthday it is.
However come the election of the New Pope and the nonsense spouted on a daily basis I somehow discovered the SSPX and the TLM. Never have I experienced anything more beautiful.I thank God for leading myself and my family to this. I truly believe that it will strengthen us for the battle to come.
I find it very difficult to attend the NO Mass now especially having read up on a lot of the changes that were put in places. I feel we were deprived of our beautiful and truly Holy Catholic liturgy
Welcome, Fizzwizz! It’s a little shocking to see the difference between the NO and the TLM. I was visiting my brother as a young adult in his college town (many years ago now…) and my sister-in-law took me to ‘mass’. It was so reverent and calm compared to the masses I knew. It turns out we were in an episcopal church!
I truly love that I can go to Mass (TLM) anywhere and it will be virtually the same around the world.