A rant in defense of the Novus Ordo

[Spiller]

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

Yow!! What a perfect example of Traditional Cafeteria Catholicism!!!

You say it was “touching” for the priest to ignore the rubrics of the Mass and do as he pleases. How odd. I would rather him just follow the Mass rubrics. Yet you find it “touching” instead of abusive or negative because kneeling is always “better” than standing in your book!

You are effectively saying “I know better than the Church does and I can determine when to deviate from the Mass.” Yet at the same time you go exothermic when a priest leaves the sanctuary to shake someone’s hand or a layperson goes to the tabernacle to retrieve the ciborium. Utter hypocrisy!

That sorta Traditional Cafeteria Catholicism is yet another element that ruins the credibility of many traditionally-minded Catholics.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The one point I have to put my two cents in is concerning the Offertory. It is something which is debated back and forth, but I really do see it as a strong disadvantage to the Pian rite of Mass.

As the OP mentioned, in the Pauline Missal, most of the references to sacrifice prior to the Consecration were removed. In the Pian rite of Mass, you had 16 references to the fact that what was happening was a sacrifice. 12 of them occured before the Consecration, 4 after. Thus, it was mentioned 3 times more often prior to the Consecration than before.

Now this in and of itself is not a problem. In response to the OP’s statement, it has been pointed out that this is a buildup to the Consecration, when the Sacrifice actually occurs (one poster said that the sacrifice occured on Calvary, not at the Consecration, but this is not in line with traditional or current Catholic Sacramental theology, or with the Council of Trent. The Mass is a true Sacrifice, not merely a memorial. In fact, in the Ottaviani Intervention you will see one of the complaints has to do with the use of the vernacular to express the anamnesis, because the meaning of the Latin more accurately conveys that it is not merely a memorial, but a true memorial Sacrifice. In the Mass, the Body and Blood of Christ are truly presented to the Father. According to traditional Sacramental theology, this occurs at the Consecration due to the mystical representation of the separation of Christ’s Body and Blood which is manifest by the dual Consecration). If indeed the prayers prior to the Consecration really did build up to the Sacrifice, nobody would have any ill feelings regarding it. The problem is, as the somewhat wellknown Catholic apologist Matt1618 puts it,

“The Tridentine decree gave an impression that the sacrifice of bread and wine came during the offertory. Actually there is only one sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ accomplished during the consecration of the elements. Many eminent liturgists even during the days of St. Pius V discussed a reform of the Roman Canon to eliminate a misunderstanding of the meaning of sacrifice. The Tridentine Mass could give an impression that the offering of bread and wine constituted the sacrifice of Christ when it said, for example “We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the Chalice of salvation.” and “Receive O Holy father… this immaculate host which I…offer Thee…,”. This caused some to think that this is when the sacrifice of Christ took place. In actuality, the salvific sacrifice of Christ was on Calvary, and the sacrifice is perpetually renewed on the altar AT THE MOMENT OF CONSECRATION by a validly-ordained priest, and not before. The Council of Trent clearly teaches this (Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist) (Whitehead, 120)”

• matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

The problem is that all of these prayers involve present-tense offerings to the Father. If they said, “Accept, O Father, this Sacrifice which we will offer,” and similar such sentiments, this would be truly beautiful. Indeed, such a build-up would create a tremendous atmosphere of sacredness and would quite powerfully make it clear just what was going on. However, as it is, the Pian Missal involves the priest offering, in the present tense, unconsecrated bread and wine to the Father 12 times before finally the Sacrifice actually occurs and the true Bread of Life is offered to Him.

Continued…

 

[Lazerlike42]

…continued from #21

• **Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise, for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen. **
• We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, beseeching Thy clemency that it may ascend as a sweet odor before Thy divine majesty, for our own salvation, and for that of the whole world. Amen.
• … and may the sacrifice we this day offer up be well pleasing to Thee, Who art our Lord and our God.
• Come, Thou, the Sanctifier, God, almighty and everlasting; bless + this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of Thy holy name.
• Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation offered offered up by us to Thee in memory…
• Brethern, pray that my sacrifice and yours may be well pleasing to God the Father almighty.
• Therefore, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to receive and to bless these + gifts, these + presents, these + holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee…
• Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy Servants, N. and N., and of all here present, whose faith and devotion are known to Thee, for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee, this sacrifice of praise…
• Wherefore, we beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously to receive this oblation which we, Thy servants, and with us Thy whole family, offer up to Thee…
• And do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects to bless +, consecrate +, and approve + this our oblation, to perfect it and render it well-pleasing to Thyself, so that it may become for is the body + and blood + of Thy most beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Now I have bolded the particular prayers which I believe could be understood problematically. The non-bolded ones would fit perfectly into a build-up. They sound like the priest is telling God all the reasons he is offering the Sacrifice, and asking God to accept it, and then at the end of these prayers, it is offered.

The bolded prayers give the distinct impression that the priest is offering the unconsecrated host to God. They don’t just ask God to accept the offering, which could refer to a later offering, but they ask God to accept the host which is sitting before the priest. Some of them even involve the priest asking God to bless the offering - the offering which is the Body and Blood of Christ - while the priest makes the sign of the cross over the unconsecrated bread and wine. For example:

“Therefore, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to receive and to bless these + gifts, these + presents, these + holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee…”

This prayer asks the Father to receive these gifts, all while the priest blesses unconsecrated bread and wine. The impression it gives is extremely misleading.

Note Matt1618’s statement that even in the time of Pius V, people thought that this was a problem and that the prayers before the Consecration ought to anticipate in a more clear way the Offering which is to come later.

I really, really, really love the Pian Mass, from the beauty to the requirement to celebrate *ad orientem *, to some of the really profound prayers, to the level of sacredness involved such that even before the Mass begins the priest goes through an entire ceremony just to walk up to the altar!

But these Offertory prayers are really problematic for me.

Peace and God bless!

 

[JReducation]

I have no more problem with the Tridentine form of the mass or EF as it is now called, than I do with any of the Byzantine forms or the Orthodox forms. I have a serious problem when people post such things on a Catholic forum as the following:

1. “ I hope that John Paul II is never canonized. That would be another thing that he messed up.” How dare anyone desire that a person never be united to the community of the Saints or that if so, God keep it a secret from the Church.
2. Passing judgement on prelates of the Church because they allowed non Catholics to pray for them. Since when did prayer become a sin?
3. Claiming that Jewish babies are damned for not availing themselves of the salvation that Christ offers.
4. “The Pope is the highest office in the Catholic Church is a popular fallacy.” How can one say this and still be Catholic? This is one of the points that caused the separation between the West and the East.
5. “Infallible statements made by popes have to be ratified by bishops.” Since when?
6. “Pope Paul VI was a heretic for creating the Novus Ordo.” When did the laity become the deciding voice on what a pope can and cannot do?
7. “Pope John Paul II abused his power when he excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre.”

When those who claim to be Traditionalists make such claims it only hurts other faithful people who have lived with the desire to see the EF return, including Pope Benedict. True Traditionalists are yearning to see their beloved form of the EF, but are not antagonistic toward the Church and its hierarchy.

They do not use their love for the EF as a platform to judge, condemn and much less disobey. These people truly want to be holy. The EF provides a means for them to pray and worship that lifts up their souls to God. The greatest attribute of a true saint is that he or she is only interested in seeing people rise to union with God through the Eucharist, other sacraments, prayer, penance and conversion of manners. True saints never set out to offend. True saints are humble. They do not assume authority that is not theirs to assume.

Certainly, the creation and the protection of the OF is not the role of the laity. It is the role of the Holy See and the Bishops. It is up to them to decide whether or not the OF is an efficacious means of sanctity and they have decided that it is. So why people can’t just settle down and accept that decision is stunning beyond belief. Sanctity consists in fidelity to everything that is holy.

JR

 

[NoPlaceLikeRome]

,
“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.

After not attending the OF for a few weeks and then coming back, I have to say that most of it washes over me and I can ignore as OK, but being expected to say “For Thine is the Kingdom” still brings me pain. Of course I *believe * fully that the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory are God’s. But saying these words as an ending to the Our Father, within Mass, when they were not in Mass until 40 years ago and are what Protestants say, and as far as I know put in for that very reason, is a painful idea.

Spiller, poorly educated is one thing that traditionalists are not. For example check out athanasiuscontramundum.blogspot.com. These people know their history and their theology, unlike most Catholics these days who know and care nothing about the basic teachings and disciplines of the Church. I am 20 years old, I know what Catholic “education” is like these days in your average parish school: nothing. When I was in third grade, I asked my Catholic teacher if there had ever been a woman Pope. She answered, “No, maybe you’ll be the first one.” I didn’t want to be Pope, I just wanted to know why, but no one explained to me until my senior year of Catholic high school why women couldn’t be priests. (I know that some OF Catholics aren’t quite so badly educated, but I relate this as an example of my true experience.)

 

[Lazerlike42]

After not attending the OF for a few weeks and then coming back, I have to say that most of it washes over me and I can ignore as OK, but being expected to say “For Thine is the Kingdom” still brings me pain. Of course I *believe * fully that the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory are God’s. But saying these words as an ending to the Our Father, within Mass, when they were not in Mass until 40 years ago and are what Protestants say, and as far as I know put in for that very reason, is a painful idea.

Spiller, poorly educated is one thing that traditionalists are not. For example check out athanasiuscontramundum.blogspot.com. These people know their history and their theology, unlike most Catholics these days who know and care nothing about the basic teachings and disciplines of the Church. I am 20 years old, I know what Catholic “education” is like these days in your average parish school: nothing. When I was in third grade, I asked my Catholic teacher if there had ever been a woman Pope. She answered, “No, maybe you’ll be the first one.” I didn’t want to be Pope, I just wanted to know why, but no one explained to me until my senior year of Catholic high school why women couldn’t be priests. (I know that some OF Catholics aren’t quite so badly educated, but I relate this as an example of my true experience.)

Dave Armstrong has been taking athanasiuscontramundum to task over some of the things he’s said. He may or may not know his theology, but there is a certain something about him that causes him to seem like he sure doesn’t.

 

[JReducation]

being expected to say “For Thine is the Kingdom” still brings me pain. Of course I *believe * fully that the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory are God’s. But saying these words as an ending to the Our Father, within Mass, when they were not in Mass until 40 years ago and are what Protestants say, and as far as I know put in for that very reason, is a painful idea.

Subscript is mine.

1. The words were part of the Didache long before Luther arrived on the scene.
2. Luther added them to his liturgy, but Lutheran theologians have always understood that they are not part of the original prayer.
3. The Catholic Church has never condemned all of Luther’s idea. Truth is truth and holiness is holiness where ever it is found. If the words of the Didache are true and holy, there is nothing wrong with Catholics including them in the liturgy.
4. If you notice, in the Cathlic liturgy they are said as part of the doxology after the Lord’s prayer, precisely to preserve the original words of the Lord’s prayer separate from the Didache.
5. If you notice in the Liturgy of the Hours, their is no doxology, therefore the Didache is not added.

If the Church had really been desireous of pleasing the Lutherans or other Protestants, they would have included the Didache in the Liturgy of the Hours as well.

When we speak about liturgy, Roman Catholics tend to me much more ignorant than Eastern and Orthodox churches. We keep separating the mass from the Liturgy of the hours in our talk of liturgy. They were never meant to be separated. Each time the Church writes on the liturgy it includes the Liturgy of the Hours. Yet on CAF, Liturgy of the Hours is practically meaningless. No one brings it up.

If we look at it closely, we can see that liturgical reform was not meant to please the Protestants. Look at how many of the same prayers from the mass are repeated in the Liturgy of the Hours and notice the subtle differences, such as this one.

This should tell us something about the mind of the Church. It was not to make Protestants happy. If you look at the Liturgy of the Hours, you’ll find nothing in them that would make Protestants happy. To begin with, most Protestants do not use them.

Take the liturgy as a whole, not just the mass. When you take it as a whole is presents a very different picture. By the way, the Church does not subordinate the Liturgy of the Hours to the mass. The two are meant to go together. So don’t tell us, “Well the Liturgy of the Hours are not as important as the mass.” This is not the mind of any of the apostolic churches.

We can learn about one from the other.

JR

 

[Lazerlike42]

JREducation makes some good points. In fact, from what I have read it seems as though part of the revision may have been done with the intention of pleasing, not the Protestants, but the Eastern Churches with whom reunion is so desperately sought. For example, the practice of reciting many canticles in addition to psalms in the Divine Office has been (from what I’ve read) common in Eastern offices, whereas in the Roman Breviary this was much more rare. The Liturgy of the Hours added a great number of the Scriptural canticles that were in use in the East.

 

[Spiller]

After not attending the OF for a few weeks and then coming back, I have to say that most of it washes over me and I can ignore as OK, but being expected to say “For Thine is the Kingdom” still brings me pain. Of course I *believe * fully that the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory are God’s. But saying these words as an ending to the Our Father, within Mass, when they were not in Mass until 40 years ago and are what Protestants say, and as far as I know put in for that very reason, is a painful idea.

**Spiller, poorly educated is one thing that traditionalists are not. **For example check out athanasiuscontramundum.blogspot.com. These people know their history and their theology, unlike most Catholics these days who know and care nothing about the basic teachings and disciplines of the Church. I am 20 years old, I know what Catholic “education” is like these days in your average parish school: nothing. When I was in third grade, I asked my Catholic teacher if there had ever been a woman Pope. She answered, “No, maybe you’ll be the first one.” I didn’t want to be Pope, I just wanted to know why, but no one explained to me until my senior year of Catholic high school why women couldn’t be priests. (I know that some OF Catholics aren’t quite so badly educated, but I relate this as an example of my true experience.)

Prove it. They sure seem like it to me. Read a tiny bit and they are off and running, wishing for the day that Fr. wears a maniple.

 

[DustinsDad]

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.

I second all of the above.

DD

 

[LRThunder]

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.

Eh, I take issue with some of your statements.

1. I doubt they are as poorly educated and poorly formed as you might think. In fact, I would say the poorly educated would tend to question basic Catholic doctrine and dogma. Traditional Catholics, IMO, don’t fall into that category.
2. Hold no power? I wonder what His Holiness might think about that. I’d say he’s pretty traditional.
3. EF is allowed without restriction? Maybe in some dioceses, but here in Florida a norm of 50 was established before it could be offered. Hardly not a restriction.
4. Once again, I’d say the most dissenting Catholics are at the other end of the spectrum: ever hear of A Call to Action etc.?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

Oh, you must mean people like Dietrich von Hildebrand who wrote the article in my signature line. Yea, he sure seems ignorant to me. Same for people like Cardinal Ottaviani, Fr. John Parsons, Fr. Brian Harrison, Dr. William Marra, Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr. Aidan Nichols, and all these other poorly formed Catholics traditionalists love to read.

Maybe you can read von Hildebrand’s article in my signature line and point out how it shows his poor formation and education, especially since in the article he is praising the TLM and critiquing the new liturgy.

And also, while you’re at it, maybe you can show how some of the above Catholics I mentioned are some of the most dissenting Catholics that exist. Thanks!

 

[Spiller]

Oh, you must mean people like Dietrich von Hildebrand who wrote the article in my signature line. Yea, he sure seems ignorant to me. Same for people like Cardinal Ottaviani, Fr. John Parsons, Fr. Brian Harrison, Dr. William Marra, Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr. Aidan Nichols, and all these other poorly formed Catholics traditionalists love to read.

Maybe you can read von Hildebrand’s article in my signature line and point out how it shows his poor formation and education, especially since in the article he is praising the TLM and critiquing the new liturgy.

And also, while you’re at it, maybe you can show how some of the above Catholics I mentioned are some of the most dissenting Catholics that exist. Thanks!

No.

You can cherry-pick any population but it in no way is representative of it.

I’m talking about what I see here and on other on-line forums and in person. I see a great deal of commonality between some self-described traditionalists here and some of our fundamentalist Protestant brethren. Not necessarily in theology, but in the “I have read 5-6 books/documents and now I am an expert.” Chilling stuff.

 

[ProVobis]

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).

They changed the wording of the definition but they didn’t change a word of the Mass text which is supposed to reflect the new definition. And don’t forget Paul VI signed the original definition. Confusion?

 

[ProVobis]

…continued from #21

• **Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise, for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen. **

This is not an official translation of the EF. I have seen some translations of “hostiam” as “victim” rather than “host”. This would definitely show the true sacrificial aspect of the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

1. “Pope John Paul II abused his power when he excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre.”

JR, I have not heard this as much as the slanders against Pius XII during the Halocaust and afterwards.

Also you didn’t mention anything about the alleged Masonic influence surrounding the high offices in the Vatican during the Vatican II period. I’ve heard more than one Trad calling that bothersome.

 

[DustinsDad]

…You say it was “touching” for the priest to ignore the rubrics of the Mass and do as he pleases. How odd. I would rather him just follow the Mass rubrics…

Perhaps the poster thought it was one of the multitude of valid options in the N.O. liturgy…
"A pattern is beginning to emerge. The NOM seems to be overly preoccupied with multiple options, leaving the shape of the liturgy to the discretion, whim, or good will of each individual priest. The TR is fixed, so that the priest becomes servant to it, and not the other way around. Many people that I have spoken to in the past have complained of “liturgical abuses” in the NOM at their parish. It should be getting clearer why the NOM lends itself to, and perhaps even invites spontaneous changes and abuse: already we’ve seen three different options for each of the rites, which, if a different combination of texts was chosen each time, would yield a total of 27 variant liturgies! No wonder certain priests do not feel bound to follow the strict parameters of the rubrics! "

…We move quickly ahead, then, to the Preface before the “Eucharistic Prayer” (known as the “Canon of the Mass” in the TR rite, since it never changes). Here we must note again the propensity of the Novus Ordo towards endless variations and options. In the TR, there are 15 prefaces, to be used on special feasts (for example, there is a Preface of the Blessed Virgin, to be used on all Marian feast days, as well as a Preface of the Apostles, to be used on all apostolic feasts), whereas in the NOM, at last count there were over 80 different prefaces to choose from. The standard, default Preface for the TR rite is a beautiful Preface that is only found on Trinity Sunday in the NOM rite…

…Before moving to the consecration itself, it must again be pointed out that the TR rite has only one “Canon of the Mass.” The same prayer is used every day, every week, every month, every year. This is what “canon” means: a rule that is fixed, firm, and dependable. In the NOM liturgy, there was a time when there were four “Eucharistic Prayers” to choose from. That quickly grew to nine, and has now grown to over fifteen in the United States. There are special, ethnicized prayers for other countries, and any country may appeal to the Vatican for approval of new prayers at any time. Thus, we have the situation in the Church now where the “canon” is anything but fixed and universal. Rather, the “canon” has become something that is nearly inseparable from ethnicity. Of these original four “Eucharistic Prayer” options, in my experience, it is “Eucharist Prayer #2” that is chosen 98% of the time, perhaps because of its brevity. It is hard to even compare the two forms of consecration prayers in the NOM and TR, so different are they from each other. But compare we will, and see which of the two is more rich in Catholic theology: …
(lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=15)
DD

 

[DustinsDad]

See this report- if accurate, it’s very pertinant to this discussion.

DD

 

[AJV]

This is not an official translation of the EF. I have seen some translations of “hostiam” as “victim” rather than “host”. This would definitely show the true sacrificial aspect of the Mass.

Yes, indeed, but the prayer says “HANC immaculatam hostiam” and what the priest is holding at that moment is not the Victim. But it is explained on the basis of it being an anticipation, the bread and wine being “types” that will be consecrated. I think the majority of the liturgies in the Church, East and West, have some measure of anticipation before the Eucharistic Prayer

 

[Our_Refuge]

See this report - if accurate, it’s very pertinant to this discussion.

DD

If it is accurate then, in my mind, one thing needs to happen. Pope Benedict needs to lead by example and celebrate the Latin Mass in St. Peters. A High Mass with all of the pagentry.
On the other hand, I just can’t see my parish priest saying the Latin Mass any time soon.To say the Mass as it should be said, the altar would need to be rearranged, a communion rail brought in, altar boys trained, the laity told that communion should only be taken on the tongue The guitars would need to go and the choir, that struggles as it is, would need to be able to sing in Latin… And most of all the priest would have to learn some Latin and all of the precise rubrics of the Mass. Otherwise the Mass will come off as a total disaster and that benefits no one.
Saying the Low Mass would be easier but the laity would really need to be instructed to truly appreciate it.