Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Hi all,

Not sure if this has been discussed yet (if it has, mods, please kindly direct me to the correct forum/thread), but I had a question about the differences between Traditional Latin Mass and Normal Sunday Mass.

I met with someone and we were discussing what types of masses we go to, and I said I typically go to Normal Sunday Mass. However, in her description of Traditional Latin Mass, it sounded like a lot of the same things my parish was doing during mass. At my parish, they typically use incense and ring the bells during the consecration, both of which she said were items in the Traditional Latin Mass. However, I didn't really consider what I was witnessing at my parish to be Traditional Latin Mass because, well, it wasn't in Latin. Then she said that her parish does Traditional Latin Mass, but it's in English. So I'm kind of confused.

I mean, what's the difference? I know most parishes don't do the ringing of the bells or use incense or regularly bless the congregation with water (where the priest walks up and down the aisle flinging holy water at people), but I figured my parish was just being more traditional, but I'm surprised if this is considered Traditional Latin Mass.

Also, at my parish, I'm the only one (usually) who kneels during the Lamb of God sequence. Typically at all the parishes I've been to in Michigan, or around the Midwest, everyone kneels at this sequence, but since I've been in California, it's actually very rare. Most of the congregation stands. Yet how can that be Traditional Latin Mass? It seems weird that they would use incense and ring the bells but then the people stand instead of kneel during the Lamb of God.

Any thoughts on this topic would be appreciated.
Jun 9th 2014 new
(quote) Jeffrey-1090194 said: Hi all,

Not sure if this has been discussed yet (if it has, mods, please kindly direct me to the correct forum/thread), but I had a question about the differences between Traditional Latin Mass and Normal Sunday Mass.

I met with someone and we were discussing what types of masses we go to, and I said I typically go to Normal Sunday Mass. However, in her description of Traditional Latin Mass, it sounded like a lot of the same things my parish was doing during mass. At my parish, they typically use incense and ring the bells during the consecration, both of which she said were items in the Traditional Latin Mass. However, I didn't really consider what I was witnessing at my parish to be Traditional Latin Mass because, well, it wasn't in Latin. Then she said that her parish does Traditional Latin Mass, but it's in English. So I'm kind of confused.

I mean, what's the difference? I know most parishes don't do the ringing of the bells or use incense or regularly bless the congregation with water (where the priest walks up and down the aisle flinging holy water at people), but I figured my parish was just being more traditional, but I'm surprised if this is considered Traditional Latin Mass.

Also, at my parish, I'm the only one (usually) who kneels during the Lamb of God sequence. Typically at all the parishes I've been to in Michigan, or around the Midwest, everyone kneels at this sequence, but since I've been in California, it's actually very rare. Most of the congregation stands. Yet how can that be Traditional Latin Mass? It seems weird that they would use incense and ring the bells but then the people stand instead of kneel during the Lamb of God.

Any thoughts on this topic would be appreciated.
The "normal Sunday Mass" is what Pope Benedict called the Ordinary Form (OF) of the liturgy; it is also commonly known as the Novus Ordo (NO) or missal of (Pope) Paul VI (who promulgated the liturgical changes after Vatican II).

The traditional Latin Mass (TLM) is what Pope Benedict called the Extraordinary Form (EF) of the liturgy. You may also see it referred to as the Usus Antiquior (older use) or missal of (Pope) John XXIII, who promulgated the 1962 changes, which were the last before Vatican II and which is the version of the missal presently authorized for use for those celebrating the EF bu the motu proprio Summorum pontificum. Prior to Summorum pontificum, the traditional Mass was entirely in Latin (except for the Kyrie, which is Greek) andt he homily; however, the Epistle and Gospel were often repeated in the local language after being read in Latin on Sundays and major feasts. Summorum pontificum authorized the Epistle and Gospel to be read in the vernacular only (without the Lain readings) at daily Masses.

What's different?

In most cases, the language. While the OF is usually celebrated either entirely in the vernacular language or primarily in the vernacular with some common prayers in Latin (Gloria, Creed, Our Father, etc.), it may be celebrated entirely in Latin; for this reason, the term "Latin Mass", while usually referring to the traditional Mass, is ambiguous.

The liturgical calendars. Those celebrating the EF use the calendar that was in effect in 1962. The feasts of some saints were removed from the liturgical calendar after 1962 and the dates some feasts are celebrated were changed. The Ember Weeks (4 occasions during the year when Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday Masses has special significance) and some octaves (an 8 day period following a major feast that is an extension of that feast) were eliminated. One of the eliminated octaves, that of Pentecost, is presently being celebrated -- this is why in the EF the liturgical color will be red through the remainder of this week while in the OF is is back to green for Ordinary Time. (There is an interesting story regarding Pope Paul VI and the octave of Pentecost in Fr. Z's blog: wdtprs.com )

Some of the obvious differences:

The EF is always celebrated ad orientem (to the (liturgical) east). In most churches this means the priest is facing the same directions as the people while at the altar. Many of the prayers, notably the Canon of the Mass, are prayed silently. Traditionally only the servers responded for the people, though in many locations this is no longer the case. When distributing Holy Communion the priest says a short prayer for each communicant instead of simply "Body of Christ".

While both forms of the Mass have the same general parts, many of the prayers are different -- sometime much so. In the EF they tend to be more solemn and, in many cases, penitential in nature.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter has an excellent video which presents a spiritual commentary of the EF low Mass. During the commentary a priest and server walk through the Mass so you can see how it is celebrated. Because this is a low Mass, it does not include some things such as the incensing and choir.
youtu.be


Jun 9th 2014 new
There is a Latin Mass in Alhambra every Sunday if you are interested in checking it out. tinyurl.com
Jun 9th 2014 new
(quote) Jeffrey-1090194 said: Hi all,

Not sure if this has been discussed yet (if it has, mods, please kindly direct me to the correct forum/thread), but I had a question about the differences between Traditional Latin Mass and Normal Sunday Mass.

I met with someone and we were discussing what types of masses we go to, and I said I typically go to Normal Sunday Mass. However, in her description of Traditional Latin Mass, it sounded like a lot of the same things my parish was doing during mass. At my parish, they typically use incense and ring the bells during the consecration, both of which she said were items in the Traditional Latin Mass. However, I didn't really consider what I was witnessing at my parish to be Traditional Latin Mass because, well, it wasn't in Latin. Then she said that her parish does Traditional Latin Mass, but it's in English. So I'm kind of confused.

I mean, what's the difference? I know most parishes don't do the ringing of the bells or use incense or regularly bless the congregation with water (where the priest walks up and down the aisle flinging holy water at people), but I figured my parish was just being more traditional, but I'm surprised if this is considered Traditional Latin Mass.

Also, at my parish, I'm the only one (usually) who kneels during the Lamb of God sequence. Typically at all the parishes I've been to in Michigan, or around the Midwest, everyone kneels at this sequence, but since I've been in California, it's actually very rare. Most of the congregation stands. Yet how can that be Traditional Latin Mass? It seems weird that they would use incense and ring the bells but then the people stand instead of kneel during the Lamb of God.

Any thoughts on this topic would be appreciated.
The main difference between the two rites linguistically, is not the amount of Latin or English. It is that the Traditional Rite ("Extraordinary Form") was believed to be organically developed, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for a thousand years. All the wording is directed toward God Himself, and instills not only a sense of the Sacred, but proper understanding of the Dogma of Faith - the belief that Jesus is Present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament. This is what the Church has always taught, that the true purpose of liturgy is to effect, preserve and teach the Dogma that the rite contains. The liturgical crafters who made up the Novus Ordo decided to take the liturgy in an entirely different, horizontal, social "new direction".

The first time the Roman Rite was drastically minimized and "revised", however, was not, as most Catholics think, during Vatican II with the creation of the Novus Ordo (New Order of Mass). The first time it was done was by the protestant liturgical revisers, who, with the hopes, first of all, of obscuring and destroying the "Popish" belief in the True Presence, removed all references to Sacrifice, the high altar, reparation, hell, the gravity of sin, adversities, enemies, evils, tribiulations, afflictions, obstinacy of heart, concupiscence of the flesh and the eyes, temptations, loss of heaven, grave effenses, merits, intercession, heavenly fellowship and guilt. They called their new creation, benignly, the Lord's "Supper". A side by side comparison of the Novus Ordo and Cramner's ( the protestant liturgist's) New Order, reveals a startling similarity, an almost identical rite. Unfortunately, a side by side comparison of the beliefs of so called modern day "Catholics" today reveals a startling similarity, an almost identical faith with Protestants as well.

I was thinking of starting a thread just for comparing the dramatic differences in wording of the two rites. But if you want to research it on your own, which I think every Catholic should do, an excellent little comparison book, thoroughly documented, is "The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass" by Rev. Anthony Cekada, available through Tan Books. This book places the orations of the Novus Ordo right next to the text of the ancient Catholic Liturgy, the Traditional "Latin" Mass, and you can judge for yourself whether or not the Modern Mass liturgy has been systematically de-Catholicized.
Jun 9th 2014 new
(quote) Judy-579799 said: The main difference between the two rites linguistically, is not the amount of Latin or English. It is that the Traditional Rite ("Extraordinary Form") was believed to be organically developed, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for a thousand years. All the wording is directed toward God Himself, and instills not only a sense of the Sacred, but proper understanding of the Dogma of Faith - the belief that Jesus is Present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament. This is what the Church has always taught, that the true purpose of liturgy is to effect, preserve and teach the Dogma that the rite contains. The liturgical crafters who made up the Novus Ordo decided to take the liturgy in an entirely different, horizontal, social "new direction".

The first time the Roman Rite was drastically minimized and "revised", however, was not, as most Catholics think, during Vatican II with the creation of the Novus Ordo (New Order of Mass). The first time it was done was by the protestant liturgical revisers, who, with the hopes, first of all, of obscuring and destroying the "Popish" belief in the True Presence, removed all references to Sacrifice, the high altar, reparation, hell, the gravity of sin, adversities, enemies, evils, tribiulations, afflictions, obstinacy of heart, concupiscence of the flesh and the eyes, temptations, loss of heaven, grave effenses, merits, intercession, heavenly fellowship and guilt. They called their new creation, benignly, the Lord's "Supper". A side by side comparison of the Novus Ordo and Cramner's ( the protestant liturgist's) New Order, reveals a startling similarity, an almost identical rite. Unfortunately, a side by side comparison of the beliefs of so called modern day "Catholics" today reveals a startling similarity, an almost identical faith with Protestants as well.

I was thinking of starting a thread just for comparing the dramatic differences in wording of the two rites. But if you want to research it on your own, which I think every Catholic should do, an excellent little comparison book, thoroughly documented, is "The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass" by Rev. Anthony Cekada, available through Tan Books. This book places the orations of the Novus Ordo right next to the text of the ancient Catholic Liturgy, the Traditional "Latin" Mass, and you can judge for yourself whether or not the Modern Mass liturgy has been systematically de-Catholicized.
Sorry, meant to say "over a thousand years".
Jun 9th 2014 new
(quote) Judy-579799 said: "The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass" by Rev. Anthony Cekada, available through Tan Books. This book places the orations of the Novus Ordo right next to the text of the ancient Catholic Liturgy, the Traditional "Latin" Mass, and you can judge for yourself
It seems to me the title of the book already dictated a judgement for the reader in regards to the material contained in the book?
Jun 9th 2014 new
Though I cannot speak to the accuracy of the information provided in the following link, I would offer the information up for reading as a side by side comparison as it is just that and only that - no commentary and as such no apparent bias as to one being preferred over the other.

www.lms.org.uk
Jun 10th 2014 new
(quote) Dave-976637 said: It seems to me the title of the book already dictated a judgement for the reader in regards to the material contained in the book?
The book I recommended not only contains the side by side comparison, but much more documented information and pertinent facts. Yes, the author has made the obvious conclusions that the revisors of the rite meant what they said when they stated their intentions in revising the rite, to "effectively destroy" the Roman Rite, take it in a "new direction", making it "more acceptable" to Protestant's who deny our Dogmas, etcetera. He does believe that is "A problem", to make a Catholic rite sound less Catholic I would say he proves his argument with facts however, by the side by side comparison, rather than "dictating" it to us. The reader is free to draw their own conclusion.

I also liked the side by side you offered in the link. Thank you. Both are good, however, from what I read of yours I think mine is more extensive, and it also takes into consideration other related information and facts which I think are relevant for any open analysis.

Some of the special Saint's Feast Day prayers, for example, are even more blatant in their omissions and revisions. There is no longer the mention of miracles, which St Robert Bellarmine noted, are so interwoven with the Catholic religion it is impossible to separate them from it. The oration for the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes doesn't even mention her apparition. Miracles are treated much like myths, and even some of the orations which recounted the miraculous in Our Lord's life were replaced with a rationalism better suited, as a Father Braga said "to the mentality of contemporary man" because expressions of the miraculous are "characteristic of a certain hagiography of the past." God's voice no longer speaks from the cloud on the Feast of the Transfiguration, and Christ's miracle of the raising of Lazarus disappeared.
Jun 15th 2014 new
Hi Jeffrey, I thought I'd insert a little on the diocese of Los Angeles, the archbishop has given direction regarding standing during the Lamb of God. It is liturgically acceptable to stand or kneel, and he has told the diocese to stand. You may also notice people there during the Our Father extending their hands directly in front of their body instead of in the prayer (hands together) position or holding hands, as seems more typical in normal Sunday Mass. This was also direction from the archbishop. I noticed the same while on retreat in Alhambra, and the Sisters there explained to us why there are slight differences compared to where we may come from.
Jun 15th 2014 new
(quote) Dave-976637 said: It seems to me the title of the book already dictated a judgement for the reader in regards to the material contained in the book?
Those intending to read the book should also be aware that Fr. Anthony Cekada is a sedevacantist and obviously not in union with the Holy See.

Posts 1 - 10 of 16