A rant in defense of the Novus Ordo

[Mickey_Jackson]

It has always bothered me on these forums when people claim that the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI is somehow heretical or invalid. And no, it’s not just because “the Pope said it’s OK,” it’s because I have yet to see any one of the critics of the NO on these forums back up their complaints with facts. I have heard the phrase “the Novus Ordo contains heresy” too many times to count, but not once have I seen anyone give a good example of a heresy found in the Ordinary Roman Missal. Some of the bad examples I’ve heard are:

• “The Missal of Paul VI says the Mass is a meal, not a Sacrifice” - of course if you actually read the Missal you see that the word “meal” is not mentioned once, but Sacrifice is mentioned in every Eucharistic prayer, at least implicitly (the EP that Traditionalists love to hate, EPII, is from the Mass of Hippolytus and is probably the most “traditional” of the four).
• “They took out the Offertory to deny the true theology of the Mass” - actually, they took out most of the references to Sacrifice before the Consecration to emphasize the fact that the Sacrifice occurs at the Consecration and is of the Body and Blood of Christ, not of the bread and wine.
• “Quo Primum was infallible” - St. Pius V, when he promulgated his version of the Breviary, concluded with the same language as Quo Primum, saying that the decree was to be “valid in perpetuity,” that anyone who changed a word of it would incur the wrath of Ss. Peter and Paul, etc.; and yet the first Pope to radically revise the Breviary was not John XXIII, not Paul VI, but that raving Modernist, Pius X!
• My personal favorite: “The Novus Ordo uses the Protestant version of the Our Father” - Hey, if you think it’s heretical to say to the Father that “the Kingdom, the power, and the glory” are His, I’m not even sure you’re a Christian.

Now, I’m not saying you can’t question the wisdom of so radically changing the liturgy, particularly when the Second Vatican Council called for very moderate revisions. As Bishop Fulton Sheen observed, it has long been a tradition (lowercase “t”) for the Church to never completely drop any prayer from its liturgy; I can see why this was a wise practice, and I don’t necessarily think it was a good idea to do away with it. But for all of you who say that the Mass of Paul VI is heretical, invalid, I want you to here tell me why. I want you to show me one word in the current Missal that goes against Tradition.

I’m sick of platitudes, particularly those that attack Holy Mother Church and her Earthly head, the Pope. Don’t we get enough of that from the Protestant Fundamentalists?

That’s my rant. Sorry about that; I just had lots of pent-up energy after sitting for five hours taking the AP US exam. Carry on!

 

[Volodymyr_988]

AP US Exam, what’s that?

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

AP US Exam, what’s that?

Advanced Placement United States History. Sorry…we high schoolers like to talk in acronyms! JK, LOL!

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

It has always bothered me on these forums when people claim that the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI is somehow heretical or invalid. And no, it’s not just because “the Pope said it’s OK,” it’s because I have yet to see any one of the critics of the NO on these forums back up their complaints with facts. I have heard the phrase “the Novus Ordo contains heresy” too many times to count, but not once have I seen anyone give a good example of a heresy found in the Ordinary Roman Missal. Some of the bad examples I’ve heard are:

• “The Missal of Paul VI says the Mass is a meal, not a Sacrifice” - of course if you actually read the Missal you see that the word “meal” is not mentioned once, but Sacrifice is mentioned in every Eucharistic prayer, at least implicitly (the EP that Traditionalists love to hate, EPII, is from the Mass of Hippolytus and is probably the most “traditional” of the four).
• “They took out the Offertory to deny the true theology of the Mass” - actually, they took out most of the references to Sacrifice before the Consecration to emphasize the fact that the Sacrifice occurs at the Consecration and is of the Body and Blood of Christ, not of the bread and wine.
• “Quo Primum was infallible” - St. Pius V, when he promulgated his version of the Breviary, concluded with the same language as Quo Primum, saying that the decree was to be “valid in perpetuity,” that anyone who changed a word of it would incur the wrath of Ss. Peter and Paul, etc.; and yet the first Pope to radically revise the Breviary was not John XXIII, not Paul VI, but that raving Modernist, Pius X!
• My personal favorite: “The Novus Ordo uses the Protestant version of the Our Father” - Hey, if you think it’s heretical to say to the Father that “the Kingdom, the power, and the glory” are His, I’m not even sure you’re a Christian.

Now, I’m not saying you can’t question the wisdom of so radically changing the liturgy, particularly when the Second Vatican Council called for very moderate revisions. As Bishop Fulton Sheen observed, it has long been a tradition (lowercase “t”) for the Church to never completely drop any prayer from its liturgy; I can see why this was a wise practice, and I don’t necessarily think it was a good idea to do away with it. But for all of you who say that the Mass of Paul VI is heretical, invalid, I want you to here tell me why. I want you to show me one word in the current Missal that goes against Tradition.

I’m sick of platitudes, particularly those that attack Holy Mother Church and her Earthly head, the Pope. We get enough of that from the Protestants.

That’s my rant. Sorry about that; I just had lots of pent-up energy after sitting for five hours taking the AP US exam. Carry on!

 

[saint_rafael]

Most Traditionalists do not say that the Mass is invalid or heretical.

We know the Mass is a valid Catholic Mass.

We just believe it was a mistake and is bad liturgy when compared to the Mass of all time, the TLM.

All we want is the TLM as the norm and the experiment of the Novus Ordo to go away on it’s own once Catholics get a fair shake at choosing between them at their parishes.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

Most Traditionalists do not say that the Mass is invalid or heretical.

We know the Mass is a valid Catholic Mass.

We just believe it was a mistake and is bad liturgy when compared to the Mass of all time, the TLM.

All we want is the TLM as the norm and the experiment of the Novus Ordo to go away on it’s own once Catholics get a fair shake at choosing betwwen them at their parishes.

And I don’t disagree; heck, I think even Pope Benedict recognizes that the liturgical reform went too far. Personally, I wish it had stopped at the 1965 Missal, which fulfilled most of the reforms that the Council called for.

I’m not impugning your good faith or that of anyone else who prefers the EF to the OF. However, I have seen some extremely nasty attacks against the Novus Ordo on these forums, and many of them do use the words “heretical” and “invalid.” It is these posters I am opposed to.

 

[bcuster]

Advanced Placement United States History. Sorry…we high schoolers like to talk in acronyms! JK, LOL!

Wow! Your rant in defense of the NO was beautifully stated. I guess I’m out of touch with High School students these days! I certainly cannot do any better.

I think that we humans take too much time complaining one way or the other. The Mass is a magnificent prayer, a life-giving sacrifice, a participation in the Mystery of our salvation. Pray the Mass! Don’t spend so much time picking it apart. We Catholics have a lot of choices these days as far as liturgy is concerned. Choose what fits your spirituality and engage wholeheartedly in the Mass!

Good luck on the exams!

 

[edward_george]

You’re quite right that this is a rant. Now, I am not casting aspersions on the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI here, but I will critique a couple of the points you’ve made.

It has always bothered me on these forums when people claim that the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI is somehow heretical or invalid. And no, it’s not just because “the Pope said it’s OK,” it’s because I have yet to see any one of the critics of the NO on these forums back up their complaints with facts. I have heard the phrase “the Novus Ordo contains heresy” too many times to count, but not once have I seen anyone give a good example of a heresy found in the Ordinary Roman Missal.(And where have you seen people saying these things? If you could provide some links to other threads that would be nice) Some of the bad examples I’ve heard are:

• “The Missal of Paul VI says the Mass is a meal, not a Sacrifice” - of course if you actually read the Missal you see that the word “meal” is not mentioned once, but Sacrifice is mentioned in every Eucharistic prayer, at least implicitly (the EP that Traditionalists love to hate, EPII, is from the Mass of Hippolytus and is probably the most “traditional” of the four). (Depends on your definition of “traditional.” A true understanding of tradition, at least as Pope Benedict and countless others in recent memory see it is as an ongoing development of something organic, growing, and living. To go back to something from the 4th century and copy/paste it into our context is inappropriate. So while the Eucharistic Prayer taken from Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition is certainly antiquated, it is not exactly in continuity with tradition to use it in the Roman Liturgy nowadays. The Roman Canon (now mangled into Eucharistic Prayer I) has been used in much the same form for many years, and developed into what it was. It wasn’t just pulled out of a prior century and tagged on. You don’t yank up a tree root and graft it into the leafy canopy, do you? No–you let the tree grow from its roots).
• “They took out the Offertory to deny the true theology of the Mass” - actually, they took out most of the references to Sacrifice before the Consecration to emphasize the fact that the Sacrifice occurs at the Consecration and is of the Body and Blood of Christ, not of the bread and wine. (The Sacrifice doesn’t take place at the Consecration…the Consecration is wherein the gifts are transubstantiated, and thus we come to share in the Sacrifice of Calvary which took place on the Cross 2000 years ago…but that’s a semantic point. I’m not sure how you could justify taking out references to sacrifice leading up to the Consecration in order to emphasize what the Consecration is, however. It would seem to me that you should kind of build things up in a crescendo of sorts, slowly working into the action you’re about to perform so that the ritual reaches its climax with the Consecration. Otherwise, you just isolate the Consecration. You should surround it with language that conveys what it is to better orient the interior dispositions of those attending at the Liturgy.)
• “Quo Primum was infallible” - St. Pius V, when he promulgated his version of the Breviary, concluded with the same language as Quo Primum, saying that the decree was to be “valid in perpetuity,” that anyone who changed a word of it would incur the wrath of Ss. Peter and Paul, etc.; and yet the first Pope to radically revise the Breviary was not John XXIII, not Paul VI, but that raving Modernist, Pius X! (Not as well read on the Quo Primum issue, so I won’t attempt to take it up.)
• My personal favorite: “The Novus Ordo uses the Protestant version of the Our Father” - Hey, if you think it’s heretical to say to the Father that “the Kingdom, the power, and the glory” are His, I’m not even sure you’re a Christian. (I don’t think I’ve heard anyone use this as an argument against the validity or licitness of the Novus Ordo Mass. Maybe some think the practice is imprudent, but all the same–I’ve not really seen anyone use this as any kind of argument.)
  Now, I’m not saying you can’t question the wisdom of so radically changing the liturgy, particularly when the Second Vatican Council called for very moderate revisions. As Bishop Fulton Sheen observed, it has long been a tradition (lowercase “t”) for the Church to never completely drop any prayer from its liturgy; I can see why this was a wise practice, and I don’t necessarily think it was a good idea to do away with it. But for all of you who say that the Mass of Paul VI is heretical, invalid, I want you to here tell me why. I want you to show me one word in the current Missal that goes against Tradition. (And I want you to show me one person who says this)

I’m sick of platitudes, particularly those that attack Holy Mother Church and her Earthly head, the Pope. Don’t we get enough of that from the Protestant Fundamentalists?

That’s my rant. Sorry about that; I just had lots of pent-up energy after sitting for five hours taking the AP US exam. Carry on!

My apologies if I come off as harsh with this, as I really don’t mean to. Just wanted to kind of critique the way in which you go about making your arguments. I don’t agree with those who say that the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid, although I do tend to think that the way in which it is structured represents a great rupture from the tradition of the Church. I was reading the Congregation of Divine Worship document that directed most of the changes to be made following the Second Vatican Council, and for the life of me I didn’t know that half the changes they call for were actually in the Conciliar documents–dropping the Leonine prayers, turning the altar around, etc. I’ve read the Constitution on the Liturgy and it, as you say, talks about moderate changes.

Good luck with your studies.

-ACEGC

 

[the_phoenix]

Hmmmm, well, I would love to defend the Latin Mass against your rant, except for the past couple of weeks, I’ve been attending the Novus Ordo.

… One week due to being on vacation in a small Southern Bible Belt area (Blue Ridge Mountains) with friendly downhome folks, where Mass is either in English or Spanish, and it was very touching to see the priest kneel for the whole Eucharistic prayer.

… And last week, just getting home from vacation in the mountains and being too tired to drive downtown to the Latin Mass, I went to my home parish’s Novus Ordo, where the sermon was an intensely personally meaningful one for me on the Ascension and “Remember the Mountain!”

This week I’ll have to get to the Latin Mass, and then maybe we can talk and get a real good debate going …

Seriously though, my motto is:

English for those who want it.
Latin for those who want it.
Reverence for all.

~~ the phoenix

 

[consumedconvert]

Hmmmm, well, I would love to defend the Latin Mass against your rant, except for the past couple of weeks, I’ve been attending the Novus Ordo.

… One week due to being on vacation in a small Southern Bible Belt area (Blue Ridge Mountains) with friendly downhome folks, where Mass is either in English or Spanish, and it was very touching to see the priest kneel for the whole Eucharistic prayer.

… And last week, just getting home from vacation in the mountains and being too tired to drive downtown to the Latin Mass, I went to my home parish’s Novus Ordo, where the sermon was an intensely personally meaningful one for me on the Ascension and “Remember the Mountain!”

This week I’ll have to get to the Latin Mass, and then maybe we can talk and get a real good debate going …

Seriously though, my motto is:

English for those who want it.
Latin for those who want it.
Reverence for all.

~~ the phoenix

Great motto!

 

[Our_Refuge]

=Mickey Jackson;3662061]
*]“The Missal of Paul VI says the Mass is a meal, not a Sacrifice” - of course if you actually read the Missal you see that the word “meal” is not mentioned once, but Sacrifice is mentioned in every Eucharistic prayer

,
When the 12 theologians sent Pope Paul their review of the New Mass they noted that the General Instructions of the New Order of the Mass did not describe the Mass as a sacrifice but as a meal. The General Instructions were then revised. For example
The original Instruction # 7 .** At the Lords Supper **or Mass…
Because of the review the Consilium reversed the wording and said “**At Mass **or the Lords Supper " The words ‘acting in the person of Christ’ were added,” Eucharstic Sacrifice" was added.
Everything in bold indicates what was added to the instructions because of the theologians review.

General Structure of the Mass
7. At Mass or the Lord’s Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding** and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice. For this reason Christ’s promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements**.

at least implicitly (the EP that Traditionalists love to hate, EPII, is from the **Mass of Hippolytus **and is probably the most “traditional” of the four).

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0540.html
“Now, where did Canon Two come from? From what’s called the Canon of Hyppolytus, composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled to the Church and died a martyr. Around the year 215, he wrote an outline of how Mass was celebrated in Rome.** It was probably never used as a liturgical text **because in the early days of the Church there was no final, written formalization of the liturgy, so this was an outline to be used by the celebrant.
Thus, the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon. If it was, it ceased being used at least 1600 years ago. Yet from the Council, which says changes ought to come through organic growth and there should be no changes unless necessary, we come to liturgists saying, “Oh, let’s pull this thing out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth.” That’s not organic growth; that’s archeologism, specifically criticized by Pius XII in Mediator Dei”

*]“They took out the Offertory to deny the true theology of the Mass” - actually, they took out most of the references to Sacrifice before the Consecration to emphasize the fact that the Sacrifice occurs at the Consecration and is of the Body and Blood of Christ, not of the bread and wine.

The Latin liturgy builds up to the consecration more than the New Mass. That basically is their complaint.

*]“Quo Primum was infallible” - St. Pius V, when he promulgated his version of the Breviary, concluded with the same language as Quo Primum, saying that the decree was to be “valid in perpetuity,” that anyone who changed a word of it would incur the wrath of Ss. Peter and Paul, etc.; and yet the first Pope to radically revise the Breviary was not John XXIII, not Paul VI, but that raving Modernist, Pius X

!
Not infallible but certainly Pius V never believed his Mass could only be said with ‘permission’. He understood his decree could be changed by a future Pope but in the traditional manner, small steps, a little at a time.

*]My personal favorite: “The Novus Ordo uses the Protestant version of the Our Father” - Hey, if you think it’s heretical to say to the Father that “the Kingdom, the power, and the glory” are His, I’m not even sure you’re a Christian.

“For Thine is the Kingdom, the power and the Glory…” is a prayer that is in the Didache from the first century. However the words “is the Kingdom” to the best of my knowledge were added by Martin Luther. He was the first to use this prayer** as part of the Our Father in his mass**. It was also added to the Our Father in the King James Bible. It was never used in the Liturgy of the Church but was used by the Protestants. That is where that idea comes from.

 

[ProVobis]

,
Because of the review the Consilium reversed the wording and said “**At Mass **or the Lords Supper " The words ‘acting in the person of Christ’ were added,” Eucharstic Sacrifice" was added.
Everything in bold indicates what was added to the instructions because of the theologians review.

General Structure of the Mass
7. At Mass or the Lord’s Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding** and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice. For this reason Christ’s promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements**.

The change made was no less confusing than the original. From it, how is one supposed to figure out the Mass is a reenactment of Calvary in the style of the burnt offerings performed by a high priest in the Old Testament, one in which he needed to consume part of the Victim (Hostia) to make the sacrifice valid and most pleasing to God? Or maybe we had it all wrong and were supposed to somehow equate “memorial of the Lord” with “Eucharistic sacrifice,” a very strange theological depiction probably better thought of as doing some damage control after the initial definition. I think it’s best to stick to the words of the canonized prayers, which are also expressed in Eucharistic Prayer I, right after the Consecration, for a better feel for the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

“Quo Primum was infallible”

We don’t call it the Quo Primum Mass, we call it the Tridentine Mass or the Mass of Trent. Trent was more doctrinal and binding than Quo Primum. Quo Primum was no more infallible than Ecclesia Dei.

 

[Our_Refuge]

The change made was no less confusing than the original. From it, how is one supposed to figure out the Mass is a reenactment of Calvary in the style of the burnt offerings performed by a high priest in the Old Testament, one in which he needed to consume part of the Victim (Hostia) to make the sacrifice valid and most pleasing to God? Or maybe we had it all wrong and were supposed to somehow equate “memorial of the Lord” with “Eucharistic sacrifice,” a very strange theological depiction probably better thought of as doing some damage control after the initial definition. I think it’s best to stick to the words of the canonized prayers, which are also expressed in Eucharistic Prayer I, right after the Consecration, for a better feel for the Mass.

I think that the 12 theologians had a reason for concern. The orginal wording clearly reflects the Protestant teaching that the Eucharist is **a spiritual presence **with the biblical passage “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20).

General Structure of the Mass- before the revision
7. At the Last Supper or Mass, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason Christ’s promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20).

 

[AJV]

I think that the 12 theologians had a reason for concern. The orginal wording clearly reflects the Protestant teaching that the Eucharist is **a spiritual presence **with the biblical passage “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20).

General Structure of the Mass- before the revision
7. At the Last Supper or Mass, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason Christ’s promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20).

Indeed.But nonetheless, the 1969 version of the IGMR had clearly in article 2 the phrase “Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood”. I am not saying that Article 7 is excusable, but if we see it in the light of the whole GIRM, the sacrifice is not denied. In the 1969 version, number 48, 54 and 358 also speak of “sacrifice”. No 55 and 62 speak of the offering of the “Victim”. No 259 affirms that the sacrifice of the cross is made present on the altar

 

[Seminarian_Matt]

Off topic: I loved the AP US History Exam. I took it last year and earned a 5.

 

[Spiller]

It has always bothered me on these forums when people claim that the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI is somehow heretical or invalid. And no, it’s not just because “the Pope said it’s OK,” it’s because I have yet to see any one of the critics of the NO on these forums back up their complaints with facts. I have heard the phrase “the Novus Ordo contains heresy” too many times to count, but not once have I seen anyone give a good example of a heresy found in the Ordinary Roman Missal. Some of the bad examples I’ve heard are:

• “The Missal of Paul VI says the Mass is a meal, not a Sacrifice” - of course if you actually read the Missal you see that the word “meal” is not mentioned once, but Sacrifice is mentioned in every Eucharistic prayer, at least implicitly (the EP that Traditionalists love to hate, EPII, is from the Mass of Hippolytus and is probably the most “traditional” of the four).
• “They took out the Offertory to deny the true theology of the Mass” - actually, they took out most of the references to Sacrifice before the Consecration to emphasize the fact that the Sacrifice occurs at the Consecration and is of the Body and Blood of Christ, not of the bread and wine.
• “Quo Primum was infallible” - St. Pius V, when he promulgated his version of the Breviary, concluded with the same language as Quo Primum, saying that the decree was to be “valid in perpetuity,” that anyone who changed a word of it would incur the wrath of Ss. Peter and Paul, etc.; and yet the first Pope to radically revise the Breviary was not John XXIII, not Paul VI, but that raving Modernist, Pius X!
• My personal favorite: “The Novus Ordo uses the Protestant version of the Our Father” - Hey, if you think it’s heretical to say to the Father that “the Kingdom, the power, and the glory” are His, I’m not even sure you’re a Christian.

Now, I’m not saying you can’t question the wisdom of so radically changing the liturgy, particularly when the Second Vatican Council called for very moderate revisions. As Bishop Fulton Sheen observed, it has long been a tradition (lowercase “t”) for the Church to never completely drop any prayer from its liturgy; I can see why this was a wise practice, and I don’t necessarily think it was a good idea to do away with it. But for all of you who say that the Mass of Paul VI is heretical, invalid, I want you to here tell me why. I want you to show me one word in the current Missal that goes against Tradition.

I’m sick of platitudes, particularly those that attack Holy Mother Church and her Earthly head, the Pope. Don’t we get enough of that from the Protestant Fundamentalists?

That’s my rant. Sorry about that; I just had lots of pent-up energy after sitting for five hours taking the AP US exam. Carry on!

I think you have to be charitable with those who spew the misinformation you note. To say that sorta stuff (and yes, I have heard it too) requires one to be profoundly ignorant of the Church and the recipient of some pretty pernicious programming by someone/something that is fairly screwed-up themselves.

So take their comments with a grain of salt and be happy they didn’t go they way of the anti-Catholic fundamentalist Protestants because it’s precisely these sort of people that often do…

 

[Spiller]

Most Traditionalists do not say that the Mass is invalid or heretical.

We know the Mass is a valid Catholic Mass.

We just believe it was a mistake and is bad liturgy when compared to the Mass of all time, the TLM.

All we want is the TLM as the norm and the experiment of the Novus Ordo to go away on it’s own once Catholics get a fair shake at choosing between them at their parishes.

LOL! It never ends!

The Tridentine Mass is hardly the “Mass of all time.”

As for the EF becoming the OF? LOL!!! Never happen!

 

[Spiller]

I’ll also guess and suggest the following. Those that militantly prefer the EF and attack the OF by and large:

• Are a tiny % of all Catholics. Some tiny fraction of 1%.
• Are poorly educated and poorly formed as Catholic Christians.
• Hold no power in the Church – and resent it.
• Are loosing much of their excuse now that the EF is allowed without restriction.
• Are some of the most dissenting Catholics that exist.

 

[bpbasilphx]

My personal favorite: “The Novus Ordo uses the Protestant version of the Our Father” - Hey, if you think it’s heretical to say to the Father that “the Kingdom, the power, and the glory” are His, I’m not even sure you’re a Christian.

**What’s so Protestant about it?

Many Eastern churches, including Easter Catholic Churches, use this doxology. The Byzantine Churches add a Trinitarian phrase to it.
**