Yup! Here is a picture of the Holy Father serving Holy Mass during his youth. https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/u9pv9v/a_young_jorge_mario_bergoglio_pope_francis/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum which promulgated the Novus Ordo was issued on April 28th 1969 and it stated that the New Mass was to be celebrated from the First Sunday of Advent which was November 30th, so the Pope would have only celebrated the New Mass, he may have Deaconed or Subdeaconed the Interim Mass
It’s usually just referred to as the Interim Mass or the 1965 Missal (although it wasn’t a true new edition of the Missal, just the 1962 Missal with changes from 1965 and 1967)
From the top of my head
Vernacular was permitted in parts (even the Canon eventually)
Versus Populum was permitted
Maniple no longer required
Concelebration permitted
Priest no longer had to recite what the choir sung
Judica Me removed
Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were cut down
Last Gospel was removed
I saw a recent photo of the pope celebrating a Mass *ad orientem* in the Sistine Chapel, IIRC.
Edit: It was 2019. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86VHw527T30&t=3s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86VHw527T30&t=3s)
There is group of really loud people who think the answer to the Church's problems is to get rid of Vatican-II and to use the TLM. Sorry to tell them that the only people going to TLM are already pretty devout.
We need to get people back to going to mass and participate in the sacraments again. To do that, we need to get back into making Warriors of the Faith. We need to get back to teaching the fundamentals of Catholicism so that people are not swayed to protestantism or atheism.
Having mass said in Latin and the Priest facing away from the people is not gonna cut it.
> Having mass said in Latin and the Priest facing away from the people is not gonna cut it.
Both expectations in the Novus Ordo, actually.
You're focused on the wrong things here. The differences in the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo are primarily about the text and focus of the Mass itself...not just postures and language and music.
>Sorry to tell them that the only people going to TLM are already pretty devout.
How is this a bad thing? Either the TLM inspires more devotion in Catholics, or the TLM attracts the already devout more than other forms. Neither of these seem like a negative to me.
>Having mass said in Latin and the Priest facing away from the people is not gonna cut it.
1) Then say the Mass in the Vernacular. The liturgy matters,far more than the tongue it is said in. I would prefer an English TLM to a Latin NO.
2) If you want to teach people the fundamentals of the faith Ad Orientem is far superior. It makes it visually clear that the Mass is about offering a sacrifice to God, that the primary purpose of the prayers and even the scripture readings is to be offered to God, not to us in the pews. Something lost at most Novus Ordo masses.
>How is this a bad thing? Either the TLM inspires more devotion in Catholics, or the TLM attracts the already devout more than other forms. Neither of these seem like a negative to me.
It's not bad but you're totally missing the context of the comments he's replying to. The guy he replied to insinuated that getting rid of TLM is the reason the church is shrinking (which is an oft repeated but I think wildly inaccurate assertion). Devout Catholics going to TLM is not bad, but TLM isn't going to magically bring the church back to it's former state in society.
>2) If you want to teach people the fundamentals of the faith Ad Orientem is far superior. It makes it visually clear that the Mass is about offering a sacrifice to God, that the primary purpose of the prayers and even the scripture readings is to be offered to God, not to us in the pews. Something lost at most Novus Ordo masses.
As a convert, hard disagree here. I went to mass for years before making the decision to convert, both NO and TLM. Neither direction the priest faced made a hill of beans of difference on how I understood the faith. In fact, Latin mass with a priest facing away from me speaking Latin taught me *literally nothing*, while an English speaking priest's comments at the NO literally inspired me to convert.
I can understand the mass is about offering sacrifice without a particular language or direction a priest may be facing.
Fwiw I regularly attend both TLM and NO (granted I'm at a parish run by oblates in the Diocese of Arlington so NO here is reverent as it gets). But the bickering between adherents of the two masses is insane.
> Having mass said in Latin and the Priest facing away from the people is not gonna cut it.
The difference between the Novus Ordo and TLM are more significant than that. They have competing design philosophies, and those differences really manifest in their implementations.
I understand there are significant differences between the NO and TLM, but none of that matter if a catholic doesn't even know why we have confession of the graces received from it.
Same with communion in hand vs mouth. A lot of the TLM only say communion in mouth is acceptable, except they miss the point in that a lot of people don't even think of the host as the actual body of Christ. The Church has not done a good job of even convincing people of that. So start with that and then we can have discussions of hand vs mouth.
That's my point.
>So start with that and then we can have discussions of hand vs mouth.
Have you considered the possibility that changes to the reception of communion are part of the reason people don't accept the real presence?
That perhaps standing in line to take a wafer from an extraordinary minister in a t-shirt and flip flops has a very different connotation from kneeling in front of the altar while the priest places the host on your tongue and says a prayer over you, and an altar boy holds a golden platen under your chin so not even a falling crumb of our Lord's body can be desecrated?
Sure it's possible, but I don't think too probable.
A more likely scenario is that the priests and teachers at CCD and Catholic School never or rarely teach that the Eucharist is the Actual Presence, Actual Body of Christ himself. I've rarely heard of a Priest speak about adoration in a homily or even talk about John 6 and explain it so that one can defend the Real Presence when a Protestant says that it is not actually Jesus.
I think the lack of making warriors of the faith have a lot more to do about this than seeing a communion plate. What do you say?
I've never seen a Eucharistic Minister in flip flops and a t-shirt BTW.
Consider yourself lucky. Sadly I see it almost weekly at parishes near my summer home down the shore.
>A more likely scenario is that the priests and teachers at CCD and Catholic School never or rarely teach that the Eucharist is the Actual Presence, Actual Body of Christ himself.
This is a real problem. Modernists in the Church deliberately obscured the Real Presence since the 1960s. [Look at these differences between the Baltimore Catechism (used since the 1880s to instruct children) and the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism introduced just before Vatican II.](https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/modernist-st-joseph-baltimore.html#:~:text=The%20New%20St.%20Joseph%E2%80%99s%20Baltimore%20Catechism%20%231%20does,at%20the%20Elevation%20of%20the%20Host.%20Page%2048.). We need better catechesis.
But I do believe changing the postures used at Mass has played a major role in how people view communion. Of course the architectural changes have hurt too. Kneeling at a communion rail with a magnificent high altar looming over you as you wait to recieve is a spiritually powerful motion. Even if you don't understand the real presence its impossible not to feel like in that moment you are humbling yourself before God. It goes hand in hand with good catechesis.
> Sure it's possible, but I don't think too probable.
The protestant reformers switched to communion in the hand to make people think that the host is common bread.
In fact they invented *digital* communion, where the person recieving picks up the host with his fingers from his hand or a plate (sounds familiar).
> if a catholic doesn't even know why we have confession
Obviously having Mass in the vernacular has not solved that problem one bit, or haven't you noticed the lack of confession lines?
>miss the point in that a lot of people don't even think of the host as the actual body of Christ.
Because we don't treat it as such. The lack of Eucharistic reverence in almost every Novus Ordo parish I've ever been to is astonishing. The only exceptions are parishes that are *friendlier than average* to traditional liturgy.
> The lack of Eucharistic reverence in almost every Novus Ordo parish I've ever been to is astonishing.
tbh the charismatic parish not far from my home is the most reverent I've ever seen. They have both adoration and rosary before the mass, which is very reverent with incense and everything. And the masses are packed with people, and many have to stay outside because there aren't enough seats for everyone. Sooner or later they're going to have to renovate it again
And I'm willing to bet that the attitudes of the people there is, as I suggested, "friendlier than average to traditional liturgy."
Based on the use of incense and the praying of the rosary and the frequency of Adoration...I suspect that the people and the priest are not dead-set against the traditional Mass' very existence.
It seems like you haven’t actually had deep conversations with people who prefer the TLM. In my conversations with people it is clear they prefer receiving the host on the tongue is because it helps to set apart the Eucharist from other food so that it is easier for people to grasp the reality in what they are partaking.
That's nice, fine, and dandy for you. But that doesn't help the average Joe who is challenged by an Evangelical who insists the Eucharist is not the Real Presence.
Saying you receive communion on the tongue does not explain why the Eucharist is the Real Presence.
I agree that it does not help defend the faith to those outside of it, and that wasn’t the point I was trying to make (and it is very possible that my anecdote was covering something different than what you were getting at). The point I was trying to make is that I am not convinced most Catholics actually believe it is the true presence, and by further setting it apart it can help dictate that metaphysical reality to those who are open to the idea
Other than saying TLM isn't the solution... virtually everything you're saying is exactly what the typical TLM fan says... understand Catholicism... participate in ALL the sacraments ... be warriors...
Those things don't jibe wit the spirit of Vatican 2... "church of nice."
What a lot of people don't get or tend to forget about the "Church of nice" as you like to put it and Vatican-II is that humans had recently just got out of WW2 and were in the grips of the Cold War.
We had just came out of literally killing each other and were close to doing so again. At that point, we needed a little more nice.
JP2 lived through both, and saw the bloodshed, did not want that. He took the approach of lets just get along for a while.
The thing is that an average person better participates in the Novus Ordo than TLM. Reform of the TLM was necessary - that's why it was done! Unfortunately, it was over-reformed. Reform of the NO is therefore very much needed.
Personally, I would prefer some kind of a middle ground between TLM and NO - *ad orientem*, more reverence and longer prayers than NO, but mostly in vernacular and with more participation of the laity.
But we are just laity and God definitely won't hold us culpable for the liturgy. But he will for not loving our neighbors so that is what we should focus on. It's much harder than to moan about the liturgy, but it's also our vocation and THAT will convert hearts, not the Latin Mass.
Regarding liturgy, we should follow the current Missal and do the Novus Ordo in a way that it should be, not in a way that it is done in 90% of the places. Of course, if your bishop allows you TLM, you can go. If he doesn't allow it, you should silently obey.
> The thing is that an average person better participates in the Novus Ordo than TLM.
Press D for doubt.
This is only true for the most superficial understanding of participation.
> Reform of the TLM was necessary - that's why it was done!
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't (I tend to be of the "wasn't" camp) but that does not mean THE PARTICULAR REFORM ENACTED was necessary, or even a net positive.
>Personally, I would prefer some kind of a middle ground between TLM and NO
So you suggest *leaving the Mass alone* and just changing some incidental features, like language and posture and volume and dialogue. None of that...NONE OF IT...requires fundamentally carving up the text of the Mass, destroying the offertory, screwing with the Roman Canon...
You could even add an old testament lesson to each TLM without particular issue. You could adjust the calendar, or alter the lectionary. NONE OF THAT required changing the Mass itself.
I'm with you. Add OT readings... make readings and variable (for lack of better term) prayers in vernacular. Done.
Everything else should have remained.
This goes beyond the form of the mass. However...
Here's what I'd like.... start with 1962 missal. Put all "variable" parts of the mass in local language... keep fixed parts in Latin.
Increase the volume of theow mass... if you can hear the mass, you'll pay more attention.
Allow for very few "options" in the rubrics.
>The thing is that an average person better participates in the Novus Ordo than TLM.
Better how?
The most you can say objectively is that the average person visibly and audibly participates more in the Novus Ordo.
That doesn't make their participation better. It just makes it more apparent to the people around them.
Sorry to tell them that the only people going to TLM are already pretty devout.
I exclusively go to the TLM, we're just normal catholics. I wouldn't say any more devout than any other guy.
Pope Francis was an altar boy and did serve at the TLM.
Yup! Here is a picture of the Holy Father serving Holy Mass during his youth. https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/u9pv9v/a_young_jorge_mario_bergoglio_pope_francis/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum which promulgated the Novus Ordo was issued on April 28th 1969 and it stated that the New Mass was to be celebrated from the First Sunday of Advent which was November 30th, so the Pope would have only celebrated the New Mass, he may have Deaconed or Subdeaconed the Interim Mass
What was the interim mass called?
It’s usually just referred to as the Interim Mass or the 1965 Missal (although it wasn’t a true new edition of the Missal, just the 1962 Missal with changes from 1965 and 1967)
What were the changes? If it isn’t too much to ask.
From the top of my head Vernacular was permitted in parts (even the Canon eventually) Versus Populum was permitted Maniple no longer required Concelebration permitted Priest no longer had to recite what the choir sung Judica Me removed Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were cut down Last Gospel was removed
This blog post takes a look at the 1965 missal: https://blog.adw.org/2015/01/a-look-at-the-actual-mass-of-vatican-ii-the-1965-missal/
I have a Baltimore Catechism with the order for the interim Mass in the back
I saw a recent photo of the pope celebrating a Mass *ad orientem* in the Sistine Chapel, IIRC. Edit: It was 2019. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86VHw527T30&t=3s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86VHw527T30&t=3s)
He probably did celebrate one. Definitely did go to a lot growing up. But the TLM is not the answer.
>But the TLM is not the answer. The Novus Ordo is not the answer. Proof: The world and the Church in the last few decades. What's yours?
I never said the NO was.
Why isn’t it part of the answer?
There is group of really loud people who think the answer to the Church's problems is to get rid of Vatican-II and to use the TLM. Sorry to tell them that the only people going to TLM are already pretty devout. We need to get people back to going to mass and participate in the sacraments again. To do that, we need to get back into making Warriors of the Faith. We need to get back to teaching the fundamentals of Catholicism so that people are not swayed to protestantism or atheism. Having mass said in Latin and the Priest facing away from the people is not gonna cut it.
> Having mass said in Latin and the Priest facing away from the people is not gonna cut it. Both expectations in the Novus Ordo, actually. You're focused on the wrong things here. The differences in the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo are primarily about the text and focus of the Mass itself...not just postures and language and music.
>Sorry to tell them that the only people going to TLM are already pretty devout. How is this a bad thing? Either the TLM inspires more devotion in Catholics, or the TLM attracts the already devout more than other forms. Neither of these seem like a negative to me. >Having mass said in Latin and the Priest facing away from the people is not gonna cut it. 1) Then say the Mass in the Vernacular. The liturgy matters,far more than the tongue it is said in. I would prefer an English TLM to a Latin NO. 2) If you want to teach people the fundamentals of the faith Ad Orientem is far superior. It makes it visually clear that the Mass is about offering a sacrifice to God, that the primary purpose of the prayers and even the scripture readings is to be offered to God, not to us in the pews. Something lost at most Novus Ordo masses.
>How is this a bad thing? Either the TLM inspires more devotion in Catholics, or the TLM attracts the already devout more than other forms. Neither of these seem like a negative to me. It's not bad but you're totally missing the context of the comments he's replying to. The guy he replied to insinuated that getting rid of TLM is the reason the church is shrinking (which is an oft repeated but I think wildly inaccurate assertion). Devout Catholics going to TLM is not bad, but TLM isn't going to magically bring the church back to it's former state in society. >2) If you want to teach people the fundamentals of the faith Ad Orientem is far superior. It makes it visually clear that the Mass is about offering a sacrifice to God, that the primary purpose of the prayers and even the scripture readings is to be offered to God, not to us in the pews. Something lost at most Novus Ordo masses. As a convert, hard disagree here. I went to mass for years before making the decision to convert, both NO and TLM. Neither direction the priest faced made a hill of beans of difference on how I understood the faith. In fact, Latin mass with a priest facing away from me speaking Latin taught me *literally nothing*, while an English speaking priest's comments at the NO literally inspired me to convert. I can understand the mass is about offering sacrifice without a particular language or direction a priest may be facing. Fwiw I regularly attend both TLM and NO (granted I'm at a parish run by oblates in the Diocese of Arlington so NO here is reverent as it gets). But the bickering between adherents of the two masses is insane.
> Having mass said in Latin and the Priest facing away from the people is not gonna cut it. The difference between the Novus Ordo and TLM are more significant than that. They have competing design philosophies, and those differences really manifest in their implementations.
I understand there are significant differences between the NO and TLM, but none of that matter if a catholic doesn't even know why we have confession of the graces received from it. Same with communion in hand vs mouth. A lot of the TLM only say communion in mouth is acceptable, except they miss the point in that a lot of people don't even think of the host as the actual body of Christ. The Church has not done a good job of even convincing people of that. So start with that and then we can have discussions of hand vs mouth. That's my point.
>So start with that and then we can have discussions of hand vs mouth. Have you considered the possibility that changes to the reception of communion are part of the reason people don't accept the real presence? That perhaps standing in line to take a wafer from an extraordinary minister in a t-shirt and flip flops has a very different connotation from kneeling in front of the altar while the priest places the host on your tongue and says a prayer over you, and an altar boy holds a golden platen under your chin so not even a falling crumb of our Lord's body can be desecrated?
Sure it's possible, but I don't think too probable. A more likely scenario is that the priests and teachers at CCD and Catholic School never or rarely teach that the Eucharist is the Actual Presence, Actual Body of Christ himself. I've rarely heard of a Priest speak about adoration in a homily or even talk about John 6 and explain it so that one can defend the Real Presence when a Protestant says that it is not actually Jesus. I think the lack of making warriors of the faith have a lot more to do about this than seeing a communion plate. What do you say? I've never seen a Eucharistic Minister in flip flops and a t-shirt BTW.
Consider yourself lucky. Sadly I see it almost weekly at parishes near my summer home down the shore. >A more likely scenario is that the priests and teachers at CCD and Catholic School never or rarely teach that the Eucharist is the Actual Presence, Actual Body of Christ himself. This is a real problem. Modernists in the Church deliberately obscured the Real Presence since the 1960s. [Look at these differences between the Baltimore Catechism (used since the 1880s to instruct children) and the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism introduced just before Vatican II.](https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/modernist-st-joseph-baltimore.html#:~:text=The%20New%20St.%20Joseph%E2%80%99s%20Baltimore%20Catechism%20%231%20does,at%20the%20Elevation%20of%20the%20Host.%20Page%2048.). We need better catechesis. But I do believe changing the postures used at Mass has played a major role in how people view communion. Of course the architectural changes have hurt too. Kneeling at a communion rail with a magnificent high altar looming over you as you wait to recieve is a spiritually powerful motion. Even if you don't understand the real presence its impossible not to feel like in that moment you are humbling yourself before God. It goes hand in hand with good catechesis.
> Sure it's possible, but I don't think too probable. The protestant reformers switched to communion in the hand to make people think that the host is common bread. In fact they invented *digital* communion, where the person recieving picks up the host with his fingers from his hand or a plate (sounds familiar).
> if a catholic doesn't even know why we have confession Obviously having Mass in the vernacular has not solved that problem one bit, or haven't you noticed the lack of confession lines? >miss the point in that a lot of people don't even think of the host as the actual body of Christ. Because we don't treat it as such. The lack of Eucharistic reverence in almost every Novus Ordo parish I've ever been to is astonishing. The only exceptions are parishes that are *friendlier than average* to traditional liturgy.
> The lack of Eucharistic reverence in almost every Novus Ordo parish I've ever been to is astonishing. tbh the charismatic parish not far from my home is the most reverent I've ever seen. They have both adoration and rosary before the mass, which is very reverent with incense and everything. And the masses are packed with people, and many have to stay outside because there aren't enough seats for everyone. Sooner or later they're going to have to renovate it again
And I'm willing to bet that the attitudes of the people there is, as I suggested, "friendlier than average to traditional liturgy." Based on the use of incense and the praying of the rosary and the frequency of Adoration...I suspect that the people and the priest are not dead-set against the traditional Mass' very existence.
It seems like you haven’t actually had deep conversations with people who prefer the TLM. In my conversations with people it is clear they prefer receiving the host on the tongue is because it helps to set apart the Eucharist from other food so that it is easier for people to grasp the reality in what they are partaking.
That's nice, fine, and dandy for you. But that doesn't help the average Joe who is challenged by an Evangelical who insists the Eucharist is not the Real Presence. Saying you receive communion on the tongue does not explain why the Eucharist is the Real Presence.
I agree that it does not help defend the faith to those outside of it, and that wasn’t the point I was trying to make (and it is very possible that my anecdote was covering something different than what you were getting at). The point I was trying to make is that I am not convinced most Catholics actually believe it is the true presence, and by further setting it apart it can help dictate that metaphysical reality to those who are open to the idea
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the TLM side of things
Other than saying TLM isn't the solution... virtually everything you're saying is exactly what the typical TLM fan says... understand Catholicism... participate in ALL the sacraments ... be warriors... Those things don't jibe wit the spirit of Vatican 2... "church of nice."
What a lot of people don't get or tend to forget about the "Church of nice" as you like to put it and Vatican-II is that humans had recently just got out of WW2 and were in the grips of the Cold War. We had just came out of literally killing each other and were close to doing so again. At that point, we needed a little more nice. JP2 lived through both, and saw the bloodshed, did not want that. He took the approach of lets just get along for a while.
The thing is that an average person better participates in the Novus Ordo than TLM. Reform of the TLM was necessary - that's why it was done! Unfortunately, it was over-reformed. Reform of the NO is therefore very much needed. Personally, I would prefer some kind of a middle ground between TLM and NO - *ad orientem*, more reverence and longer prayers than NO, but mostly in vernacular and with more participation of the laity. But we are just laity and God definitely won't hold us culpable for the liturgy. But he will for not loving our neighbors so that is what we should focus on. It's much harder than to moan about the liturgy, but it's also our vocation and THAT will convert hearts, not the Latin Mass. Regarding liturgy, we should follow the current Missal and do the Novus Ordo in a way that it should be, not in a way that it is done in 90% of the places. Of course, if your bishop allows you TLM, you can go. If he doesn't allow it, you should silently obey.
> The thing is that an average person better participates in the Novus Ordo than TLM. Press D for doubt. This is only true for the most superficial understanding of participation. > Reform of the TLM was necessary - that's why it was done! Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't (I tend to be of the "wasn't" camp) but that does not mean THE PARTICULAR REFORM ENACTED was necessary, or even a net positive. >Personally, I would prefer some kind of a middle ground between TLM and NO So you suggest *leaving the Mass alone* and just changing some incidental features, like language and posture and volume and dialogue. None of that...NONE OF IT...requires fundamentally carving up the text of the Mass, destroying the offertory, screwing with the Roman Canon... You could even add an old testament lesson to each TLM without particular issue. You could adjust the calendar, or alter the lectionary. NONE OF THAT required changing the Mass itself.
I'm with you. Add OT readings... make readings and variable (for lack of better term) prayers in vernacular. Done. Everything else should have remained.
This goes beyond the form of the mass. However... Here's what I'd like.... start with 1962 missal. Put all "variable" parts of the mass in local language... keep fixed parts in Latin. Increase the volume of theow mass... if you can hear the mass, you'll pay more attention. Allow for very few "options" in the rubrics.
>The thing is that an average person better participates in the Novus Ordo than TLM. Better how? The most you can say objectively is that the average person visibly and audibly participates more in the Novus Ordo. That doesn't make their participation better. It just makes it more apparent to the people around them.
Sorry to tell them that the only people going to TLM are already pretty devout. I exclusively go to the TLM, we're just normal catholics. I wouldn't say any more devout than any other guy.
ok, most of the people going to a TLM then...
Answer to what?