A rant in defense of the Novus Ordo

[AJV]

Perhaps the poster thought it was one of the multitude of valid options in the N.O. liturgy…

I would disagree though, DustinsDad that the increase in prefaces is not good. Admittedly we don’t need so many multiple prefaces for a lot of classes, and a certain amount of standardisation could be employed. But I think that many of the prefaces of the NO are quite rich.

 

[consumedconvert]

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.)

Whoa, slow down! First of all, I can’t think of any reason why saying “Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory” should bring anyone pain. You’re being more than a bit reactionary here, and I expect that the fact it gives you pain has more to do with your being a zealous twenty than anything else. The Church is your mater, let’s give her a break and not examine, cross-examine, and cross-cross-examine everything she does, looking for heresies. In the “thine is the kingdom,” there is nothing to find.

Secondly, you can’t assume your school is average. Our Catholic schools in my town are second to few, or none, in catechesis.

Finally, I think you’re listening to the wrong people, you are trying very hard here to be “more Catholic than the Pope.” I highly doubt B16 is “offended” by the OF, the official ordinary liturgy of the Roman Rite. Heck, I think some are trying to be more “Catholic” than God. Time to mellow out, and listen to your Mater, not who you think your Mater should be.

Oh, btw, what’s an “Ordinary Form Catholic?” I didn’t think those existed, just like “EF Catholics” don’t exist. There is currently no “Extraordinary Rite” or “Ordinary Rite.” We, both of us, are Roman Catholics. Two uses, one Rite.

 

[NoPlaceLikeRome]

I think I am pretty mellow… what I’m saying is that there are a lot more things that *could *annoy me, and have in the past. Really, it’s more that most of the NOM my brain can one way or other file under the “hermeneutic of continuity,” but that phrase just sticks out as having no possible explanation except to make Protestants feel at home.

I’m really glad you have good Catholic schools. You are lucky. I do not think your situation is common. Perhaps I am wrong. I think it is also possible that the schools have been improving. However, that’s a whole nother subject… my feeling is that with the crisis in religious orders after Vatican II, there were either very much fewer, or very much less well-formed (but mostly, just fewer), religious in most places, which shot the Catholic school system in the foot. But, these days I think religious orders are starting to bounce back. Perhaps you have been lucky enough to witness this.

 

[Lazerlike42]

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.

It’s not the issue of that particular word. Even if it only says “host” it still does convey the sacrificial aspect, because the prayer offers it to the Father for sins. In fact, the prayer says “spotless host,” which could not refer merely to bread, for only Christ is spotless.

The problem that I, and many others - even during the time of Trent - see is that the prayers don’t make it clear that this is anticipation. In fact, some of them seem to contradict the idea that it is in fact anticipation. Rather than asking God to accept the victim which will be offered, or the sacrifice offered today (as one of the prayers I have no problem with does say), they ask God to accept “this” host/victim, the one that the priest is holding, which is simply bread. Other prayers involve asking God to accept and bless “this” offering while the priest blesses the unconsecrated host.

The way that the pronouns and actions are set up, it could easily lead one who didn’t know better to believe that unconsecrated bread was being offered for sins. For those with a bit more education but still not enough (the just enough education to get you in trouble variety), it could even blur their understanding of the substantial presence of Christ, because if they know that it is Christ that is offered, but believe that the offering is taking place during the Offertory or Preface, then they may lose sight of the importance of the Consecration and the fact that a substantial change in the species occurs, leading into any number of erroneous lines of thought.

Those of us here know what we’re talking about, but many others don’t, and I believe that the OF works much better at conveying the realities to the people. What would be ideal, in my opinion, would be if all of the beautiful and extended prayers were to remain but to more clearly use future-tense languge. This would blow my mind and establish a profound atmosphere of sacrifice.

 

[stmaria]

=Lazerlike42;3664676]It’s not the issue of that particular word. Even if it only says “host” it still does convey the sacrificial aspect, because the prayer offers it to the Father for sins. In fact, the prayer says “spotless host,” which could not refer merely to bread, for only Christ is spotless.

The problem that I, and many others - even during the time of Trent - see is that the prayers don’t make it clear that this is anticipation. In fact, some of them seem to contradict the idea that it is in fact anticipation. Rather than asking God to accept the victim which will be offered, or the sacrifice offered today (as one of the prayers I have no problem with does say), they ask God to accept “this” host/victim, the one that the priest is holding, which is simply bread. Other prayers involve asking God to accept and bless “this” offering while the priest blesses the unconsecrated host.

I have never had a problem with anything you are talking about. I see no contradition. If you have a problem with that prayer in the TLM how can you not also have a problem with the prayer that you site on your blog from the New Mass?
“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.”
“Bread of life” does not necessarily translate to mean the Body and Blood of Christ.

The second part of the prayer.
“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through you goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.”

"Spiritual " drink doesn’t sound like it is refering to the Real Physical Blood of Christ but rather the “spiritual” presence.
Both liturgies can be picked apart if one wants to. But in the end what purpose does it serve?

 

[Lazerlike42]

I have never had a problem with anything you are talking about. I see no contradition. If you have a problem with that prayer in the TLM how can you not also have a problem with the prayer that you site on your blog from the New Mass?
“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.”
“Bread of life” does not necessarily translate to mean the Body and Blood of Christ.

The second part of the prayer.
“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through you goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.”

"Spiritual " drink doesn’t sound like it is refering to the Real Physical Blood of Christ but rather the “spiritual” presence.
Both liturgies can be picked apart if one wants to. But in the end what purpose does it serve?

I’m not saying everyone has a problem. You are obviously a very knowledgable Catholic. I am saying that many may have this problem, and as has been pointed out, this was even considered a problem by folks living when Pius V first instituted the Missal.

The difference with the OF prayers are that they in an explicit way anticipate the offering of the body and blood of Christ. “It will become…” Additionally, there is a real sense in which we do offer bread and wine to the Father. It’s not the ultimate offering, but it is a real offering in a similar sense to the offerings of the first fruits under the Levitical system.

I can see your point about the “spiritual drink,” but there is also a phrase that is similarly ambiguous in the EF… I can’t find it right now, I’ve been looking.

As far as why we discuss these things, there are lots of reasons. One is that it’s fun. It’s also the case that there are legitimate positives and negatives to each Missal, and by discussing them we not only can play a small role in moving the conversation about these things towards perhaps a Missal which takes the best from both, but more importantly we can all grow in our understanding of each Missal and in our ability to worship God with greater love and reverance during the Mass.

 

[JReducation]

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.

I’m not here to bash Traditionalists. That’s not my purpose. What does concern me when people make these claims as a reason for rejecting the OF is that it causes confusion and division.

Confusion an division we have enough of in this life. The last thing that Catholics need to be doing is adding to the mess by accusing their own Church of things that in the end are really mute.

If for a fact, and that’s a big if, there was a Mason among those who wrote the OF, in the end the point it mute, because the OF was reviewed and approved by Pope Paul VI. Paul VI was not a Mason. It was used and allowed to be used extensively by John Paul II, also not a Mason. And Benedict XVI in the Motu Proprio sets it up as the OF as the Roman Rite and reminds the Bishops that they are to protect it. He also reminds us of the sanctity of the OF.

Regardless of who was on the committee, the point it that in the Catholic Church, the final authority on Liturgy in the Holy See. Once it gets the blessing of the Holy See Catholics, who was on the team that wrote it is a mute question. Because those who write the original or final draft are not responsible for its promulgation. The Holy See is responsible and in the end the Holy See is also responsible if people are off track because they follow what the See has taught. It’s when you get off the track that is established by the Holy See that you take your moral salvation into your own hands. You may be right, but you can just as easily be wrong.

JR

 

[JReducation]

If I understand the OP correctly, he is trying to defend the OF from those who would detract from it, not attack the EF.

What I’m seeing in some posts is people are picking the OF apart word for word. If we do that, we can pick anything apart word for word and find fault with it.

When it comes to the mystical life, words are never going to adequately represent the fullness and richness of the mystical event that is happening before us. Just read the writings of the mystics and they tell you very clearly that they can’t put into precise words what they have experienced.

If you read St. Faustina, when she saw the first painting of the Jesus of Mercy, she was disappointed because it failed to represent the beauty of the real thing.

On another note, we have drop calling people OF and EF Catholics. There are no such animals in this ark. There are only Latin Rite Catholics. I’m not even sure where the term Roman Rite Catholic came from. The Church has always used the Latin Rite. We have called it the Roman Missal and the Roman Breviary, but the rite itself has always been called the Latin Rite. We are Latin Rite Catholics with two forms of the Roman Missal, the EF and the OF.

As far as the teaching Magisterium of the Church is concerned by are both vehicles of sanctity.

It would seem to me that if one wants to be a saint, which should be everyone’s goal, we would do well to heed the words of St. Benedict. “Stop trying to be a saint and be virtuous.”

Attacking, cross examining, and arguing over something that the Church has authoritatively declared falls short of the virtuous life that St. Benedict suggested. A virtuous soul spends more time in prayer, penance, acts of self-mortification rather than mortifying everyone else with his or her criticisms.

Virtuous souls focus on the presence of Christ in the Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours, and in every person whom they encounter. Most of the great saints have said that truth is truth regardless where it comes from.

Even if we learn something from our Protestant or Orthodox brothers and sisters, truth remains truth. No one has ever said that they have no truth that we cannot learn from. That’s silly.

Let’s return to the OP and try to see the benefits and holiness of the OF and to be obedient and accept that the OF is what it is and the Church has given it her seal of approval.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

This is not cherry picking. These are the authors (and others) who traditionalists read. To me they have a lot more weight than posters in comboxes. I suppose I could throw in here the Latin Mass magazine as representative of the thought of traditionalists. If someone wishes to engage and/or understand the arguments of traditionalists these authors (and others) are the place to go.

 

[JReducation]

Since the EF has been approved, can we lay this to rest?

JR

 

[consumedconvert]

One Latin Rite indeed, JR

I wonder if some of the thought behind the restriction of the EF (which was recently lifted) was to avoid divisions among those of the Latin Rite–those who prefer one use, and those who prefer another. But I am glad the EF has been made available. It has been available for a long time in our diocese.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

One Latin Rite indeed, JR

I wonder if some of the thought behind the restriction of the EF (which was recently lifted) was to avoid divisions among those of the Latin Rite–those who prefer one use, and those who prefer another. But I am glad the EF has been made available. It has been available for a long time in our diocese.

How do you think these divisions exploded into the forefront in the first place? (Say, about forty years ago?)

And anyway, the suppression of a liturgy which embodied the Catholic faith for at least 1,600 years for the NO is not going to produce any real unity. The issues will always be there.

 

[Lazerlike42]

How do you think these divisions exploded into the forefront in the first place? (Say, about forty years ago?)

And anyway, the suppression of a liturgy which embodied the Catholic faith for at least 1,600 years for the NO is not going to produce any real unity. The issues will always be there.

The old Roman Rite did not resemble the Tridentine rite until somewhere about the middle ages. It was far simpler and some have argued more akin to the OF prior to that. Those who claim that the Tridentine rite does not go back to the time of Gelasius and Gregory are mistaken, but those who claim that it goes back largely the same and did not develop tremendously over the centuries are also mistaken.

 

[JReducation]

The EF has been restored. I believe this is a good thing. Now it’s time to move on. We cannot continue to debate and bring up every issue or resentment that we may have because it was put on the sidelines 40 years ago. The oversight was corrected.

Humility requires that we now focus on restoring peace to our hearts and our Church. We cannot live in peace unless we learn to forgive. We may feel that we were wronged by being deprived of the Tridentine form of the liturgy. Maybe some people were deprived. But we must keep in mind that we were never deprived of the most important of all mysteries, the Eucharist.

Let us make use of the graces that we receive through the Eucharist to silence our souls and recover our peace, so that whether we worship using the EF or the OF form we may be united to each other and to all men through the Divinity of Christ.

Let us turn our attention to the more pressing needs of our time. We live in a world that wants to pretend that it is Godless. We will never convert this world unless we show God’s presence through our love, detachment from material things, charity toward all people, when possible, preaching without words, and as St. Bernard taught us, devotion to the humanity of Christ made incarnate in Mary’s womb so that he may become incarnate in our souls through the Eucharist.

As Sister Faustina said, “The future with God is our future.” It is not our future to debate every word or technicality of liturgy or Church writings. Such debates can often hinder instead of help salvation. Heaven is achieved through the spirit of prayer and service. The Eucharist, in any form and in any rite, will lead us to prayer and service if we keep silent and hear the voice of the Holy Spirit calling us to a deeper union with him, not with this writer or the other.

Communion is always between the soul and Divinity. Let’s not raise more issues. Instead, let us raise our voices and hearts in worship and praise of God and raise each other through corporal works of mercy, for Christ is mercy and our fidelity to the Gospel will be measured not by our fidelity to form, but fidelity to mercy.

On this Pentecost Sunday, let us ask the Holy Spirit to give us the gift of interior silence that we may live a holy life, not only worshipping as is proper and fitting to God, but loving the Church and all people as the Father loves them.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The old Roman Rite did not resemble the Tridentine rite until somewhere about the middle ages. It was far simpler and some have argued more akin to the OF prior to that. Those who claim that the Tridentine rite does not go back to the time of Gelasius and Gregory are mistaken, but those who claim that it goes back largely the same and did not develop tremendously over the centuries are also mistaken.

It simply is not the case that the Roman Rite did not resemble the TLM until the Middle Ages. I don’t think the Roman Rite ever resembled the OF unless one goes back so far there are no liturgical books available and then speculates.

According to Cardinal Gasquet [regarding the Canon]:

• This fact, that it has so remained unaltered during thirteen centuries, is the most speaking witness of the veneration with which it has always been regarded and of the scruple which has ever been felt at touching so sacred a heritage, coming to us from unknown antiquity."
  Although the rite of Mass did continue to develop after the time of St. Gregory, Doctor Fortescue explains that:
• All later modifications were fitted into the old arrangement, and the most important parts were not touched. From, roughly, the time of St. Gregory we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.
  latin-mass-society.org/msshst8.htm

 

[JReducation]

It simply is not the case that the Roman Rite did not resemble the TLM until the Middle Ages. I don’t think the Roman Rite ever resembled the OF unless one goes back so far there are no liturgical books available and then speculates.

According to Cardinal Gasquet [regarding the Canon]:

• This fact, that it has so remained unaltered during thirteen centuries, is the most speaking witness of the veneration with which it has always been regarded and of the scruple which has ever been felt at touching so sacred a heritage, coming to us from unknown antiquity."
  Although the rite of Mass did continue to develop after the time of St. Gregory, Doctor Fortescue explains that:
• All later modifications were fitted into the old arrangement, and the most important parts were not touched. From, roughly, the time of St. Gregory we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.
  latin-mass-society.org/msshst8.htm

Don’t you think that now that the Holy Father has established that the EF and the OF can co-exist as two forms of the same rite is enough?

Do we really need to keep up this defense (for lack of a better word) of the EF?

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Don’t you think that now that the Holy Father has established that the EF and the OF can co-exist as two forms of the same rite is enough?

Do we really need to keep up this defense (for lack of a better word) of the EF?

JR

I don’t consider the TLM as in need of defense, it stands on its own. However, when I come across statements that I consider to be in error regarding the TLM then I may very well address the issue.

 

[Lazerlike42]

It simply is not the case that the Roman Rite did not resemble the TLM until the Middle Ages. I don’t think the Roman Rite ever resembled the OF unless one goes back so far there are no liturgical books available and then speculates.

According to Cardinal Gasquet [regarding the Canon]:

• This fact, that it has so remained unaltered during thirteen centuries, is the most speaking witness of the veneration with which it has always been regarded and of the scruple which has ever been felt at touching so sacred a heritage, coming to us from unknown antiquity."
  Although the rite of Mass did continue to develop after the time of St. Gregory, Doctor Fortescue explains that:
• All later modifications were fitted into the old arrangement, and the most important parts were not touched. From, roughly, the time of St. Gregory we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.
  latin-mass-society.org/msshst8.htm

I have to disagree. The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

In any case the old Roman Rite is not exactly that now used. Our Roman Missal has received considerable additions from Gallican sources. The original rite was simpler, more austere, had practically no ritual beyond the most necessary actions (see Bishop, “The Genius of the Roman Rite” in “Essays on Ceremonial”, edited by Vernon Staley, London, 1904, pp. 283-307). It may be said that our present Roman Liturgy contains all the old nucleus, has lost nothing, but has additional Gallican elements.
…

So we see that at the latest by the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Rite has driven out the Gallican, except in two sees (Milan and Toledo), and is used alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying here too the principle that rite follows patriarchate. But in the long and gradual supplanting of the Gallican Rite the Roman was itself affected by its rival, so that when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no longer the old pure Roman Rite, but has become the gallicanized Roman Use that we now follow. These Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Our blessings of candles, ashes, palms, much of the ritual of Holy Week, sequences, and so on are Gallican additions. The original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical.

• newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm

I would also recommend matt1618.freeyellow.com/palm.html.

I agree with you to a degree, as regards some of the prayers, but in the broader sense my original point stands.

Peace and God bless

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

First of all, let me say that JR is correct: I did not by any means intend to critique the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, or to say that it contains doctrinal error. I merely asked that those who claim that the Ordinary Form is somehow heretical either prove their point or stop disturbing the peace of many orthodox Catholics struggling with their faith.

Here are responses to some of the objections (all of which are quite reasonable) raised against my arguments:

1. Regarding the Canon of Hippolytus: I shouldn’t have said that it was the most “traditional” (small “t”) of the EPs. As a poster pointed out, if we look at tradition in the sense of organic development, clearly this prayer does not fit this definition. Really, all I meant to say was that unless we can prove that St. Hippolytus was a heretic regarding the theology of the Mass, we really have no reason to say that EPII denies this theology.
2. Regarding the Offertory prayers: Other posters have made addressed this topic more knowledgeably than I can, but let me just say that I don’t think that the EF contains error, nor do I necessarily disagree with the need to have a sort of “building up” to the Consecration. The point that I intended to make was simply that removing the pre-Consecration references to sacrifice does not necessarily deny the doctrine of the sacrificial Mass. Clearly, Pope Paul VI believed in this doctrine (if you don’t believe me, read his excellent encyclical Mysterium Fidei), so I don’t think we have any reason to say that he intended to de-emphasize it in the Novus Ordo.
3. Regarding the infallibility of Trent and Quo Primum: Nowhere in the documents of Trent do we find a dogmatic statement that the Pian Mass is the only acceptable rite. The only document that comes close to saying this is Quo Primum, and I don’t think anyone can dispute the historical and canonical fact that St. Pius V did not intend for this document to be binding on future Popes.

All of this said, I tend to agree that it was a bad idea to change the Mass so abruptly. I think the 1965 Missal is a much better representation of the reform desired by the Council: retaining most of the prayers from the 1962 Missal, and permitting some use of the vernacular. Again, all I ask is that someone show me just one word in the Ordinary Form that denies one iota of Catholic doctrine.

Pax vobis!

 

[JReducation]

First of all, let me say that JR is correct: I did not by any means intend to critique the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, or to say that it contains doctrinal error. I merely asked that those who claim that the Ordinary Form is somehow heretical either prove their point or stop disturbing the peace of many orthodox Catholics struggling with their faith.

Here are responses to some of the objections (all of which are quite reasonable) raised against my arguments:

1. Regarding the Canon of Hippolytus: I shouldn’t have said that it was the most “traditional” (small “t”) of the EPs. As a poster pointed out, if we look at tradition in the sense of organic development, clearly this prayer does not fit this definition. Really, all I meant to say was that unless we can prove that St. Hippolytus was a heretic regarding the theology of the Mass, we really have no reason to say that EPII denies this theology.
2. Regarding the Offertory prayers: Other posters have made addressed this topic more knowledgeably than I can, but let me just say that I don’t think that the EF contains error, nor do I necessarily disagree with the need to have a sort of “building up” to the Consecration. The point that I intended to make was simply that removing the pre-Consecration references to sacrifice does not necessarily deny the doctrine of the sacrificial Mass. Clearly, Pope Paul VI believed in this doctrine (if you don’t believe me, read his excellent encyclical Mysterium Fidei), so I don’t think we have any reason to say that he intended to de-emphasize it in the Novus Ordo.
3. Regarding the infallibility of Trent and Quo Primum: Nowhere in the documents of Trent do we find a dogmatic statement that the Pian Mass is the only acceptable rite. The only document that comes close to saying this is Quo Primum, and I don’t think anyone can dispute the historical and canonical fact that St. Pius V did not intend for this document to be binding on future Popes.

All of this said, I tend to agree that it was a bad idea to change the Mass so abruptly. I think the 1965 Missal is a much better representation of the reform desired by the Council: retaining most of the prayers from the 1962 Missal, and permitting some use of the vernacular. Again, all I ask is that someone show me just one word in the Ordinary Form that denies one iota of Catholic doctrine.

Pax vobis!

If there were anything in the OF that were contrary to the faith the Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI would not have defended the sanctity of the OF, because you can’t have it both ways. It can’t be holy and in error at the same time.

Given the fact that this pope is a theologian and a philosopher, it would be very difficult for something like this to get past him.

I’ll take my chances with Benedict XVI.

There is no error in the OF.

JR