A rant in defense of the Novus Ordo

[Lazerlike42]

Our Refuge, you’re misunderstanding our point.

I’m not claiming that Pope Innocent had an agenda or that he intended to lie. What we’re pointing out is that at the time of Innocent III, the mysterium fidei was believed to be a part of apostolic tradition, but later research has shown that it was not. It was not present in the Words of Institution in some of the earliest canons on record, nor is it present in the Words of Institution in many of the Eastern canons. If it came directly from the apostles, why wouldn’t it have been?

In other words, it very evidently - as is accepted, as far as I understand it, by all scholars of the subject - was added to the canon at some point. Evidence does not exist to help us determine exactly when this addition was made. Innocent thought it was a part of apostolic tradition, and he expressed this in a private letter to a bishop - but he did not even offer it as a teaching in that private letter. He simply said that it was believed to have come from the apostles.

Innocent suggested one interpretation of it, St. Thomas Aquinas has offered others (see III, 78, 3, ad. 5 and main articleSumma Theologiae), and dthroughout history others have offered others. It’s meaning is, according to liturgical scholars - debatable.

AJV gave an example of another Liturgical text which was believed to be of apostolic origin but was discovered later not to in fact be.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=Lazerlike42;3676667]

Innocent suggested one interpretation of it, **St. Thomas Aquinas has offered others **

(see Summa Theologiae III, 78, 3, ad. 5 and main article), and dthroughout history others have offered others. It’s meaning is, according to liturgical scholars - debatable.

Does Aquinas advocate that it should be removed because its meaning is uncertain and its origin unknow? No he does not.

Reply to Objection 5. The word “mystery” is inserted, not in order to exclude reality, but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ’s blood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

Reply to Objection 6. It is called the “Sacrament of** Faith,” **as being an object of faith: because by faith alone do we hold the presence of Christ’s blood in this sacrament.

Does Aquinas say that Mystery of Faith is in any way connected to the Dogma that Christ has died, Christ has risen Christ will come again.? No he does not.

The commission that wrote the New Liturgy also wanted to **remove **the sign of the cross from the beginning of Mass because, “This would be an innovation contrary to the entire liturgical tradition” The Traditional Mass begins with the sign of the cross yet the commission said it is an innovation contrary to liturgical tradition
Pope Paul insisted that the New Mass begin with the sign of the cross and his wish was granted by the commission.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=JReducation;3676642]
What the Church has done is simply remove the proclamation from the words of consecration, so that the words of consecration stand alone and insert them immediately following the consecration, without interruption, so that the unity of the words of consecration and the mystery of faith/Christ continue to be united as they have always been. This is not a break with traditions. This is a rearranging of the wording for the sake of clarity."

Sake of clarity? What do the words 'Mystery of Faith " mean in the New Mass?
Why do the Anglicans also say, " Therefore we proclaim the Mystery of Faith: Christ has died, Christ has Risen, Christ will come again" after their consecration?

 

[JReducation]

=Lazerlike42;3676667]

 

[Our_Refuge]

Our Refuge;3676890:

Aquinas didn’t have to say this. This was an established belief of the Church regarding the Eucharist for centuries. The Church always believed that the Eucharist was not only the physical body and blood of Christ, but that it is the efficacious proclamation of the paschal mystery, which is that Christ has died, Christ is risen and Christ will come again.

This was held by the Eastern Fathers for centuries. The Orthodox held on to it to this day. In the West the words were blended with the words of consecration, but the belief itself was always understood to be the Paschal Mystery

. The sacrifice of Calvary would have no meaning without the resurrection and the second coming. This is very clear in the Pauline writings.

JR

So do the words “mystery of faith” have a new meaning in the New Mass? A meaning shared by the Anglicans since they also have the same words after their consecration?

 

[JReducation]

Sake of clarity? What do the words 'Mystery of Faith " mean in the New Mass?
Why do the Anglicans also say, " Therefore we proclaim the Mystery of Faith: Christ has died, Christ has Risen, Christ will come again" after their consecration?

The Anglicans say for the same reason that Catholics say it. To proclaim the Eucharist is the Paschal Mystery. The proclamation is clearer when it is taken out of the words of consecration and allowed to stand on its own. It’s making a statement about what just happened in the consecration.

This was the intent when it was first inserted into the consecration. But as centuries passed, people began to think that these were part of the words of consecration, which is not the case.

The words of consecration are “This is my body” and “This is my blood”

Everything else is subordinate modifying clause that describes the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Because the grammatical form that was used for so many years is no longer in use today, it became confusing for many people as to which are the words of consecration and which are the modifiers. The Mystery of faith is a modifying clause, not the actual words of consecration. So it when it is said following the words of consecration it proclaims and explains what the Eucharist it, the Paschal Mystery.

What changed was the grammatical structure, not the original intent.

By the way, there is no such thing as a new mass. It is the same mass, different form. Novus Ordo means new order, not new mass. The Motu Proprio has stopped using the term NO and has called it the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite mass.

I don’t understand why we have this long discussion about the OF and the EF. What are we expecting to get out of this discussion, except to kill time? The Church has already spoken on this. The matter is closed until another Pope reopens it.

I for one am not sweating it. If there are now two forms of the Latin Rite, so be it. As St. Benedict said, “Don’t worry about being a saint, just be virtuous.” A life of virue does not depend on who’s right or wrong on this issue, as none of us has any authority on this issue. Virtue depends on our charity toward all and our support toward people who are trying to worship God. If someone finds that worshipping in the EF brings them into a richer prayer life and influences the practice of charity and virtue, then in charity I’m going to support that person. The same for someone who finds spiritual light in the OF, then I’m going to support that person.

What interests me is to see peope find God.

JR

 

[Lazerlike42]

Our Refuge,

I understand your sincere desire to defend the faith. It’s wonderful. The only problem is that in this particular case, you’re wrong about what you are saying. Your arguments essentially discount the entire Eastern Church going all the way back to the time of the apostles. They have always placed the *Mysterium Fidei *outside of the Consecration.

The only point we are trying to make is that the Mysterium Fidei was not a part of the words of Consecration until sometime in the middle of the first millenium. It was mistakenly attributed to the apostles by Innocent III. The understanding of its meaning in the Western Canon has never been uniform - Innocent III offered one interpretation, Thomas Aquinas offered at least two different interpretations, and as I have pointed out liturgical scholars have pointed to various other possible interpretations that have been suggested.

None of these persons denied any Catholic doctrines. They just had different understandings of this particular line in the Canon. The whole point is simply that it’s not wrong or contrary to tradition to take the words and move them to another part of the Canon… that’s all. Because it has been claimed that it was, we have brought up these various pieces of evidence that it is not in fact wrong or contrary to tradition to do so. That’s all.

Peace and God bless

 

[Our_Refuge]

=JReducation;3676980]The Anglicans say for the same reason that Catholics say it. To proclaim the Eucharist is the Paschal Mystery. **The proclamation is clearer **when it is taken out of the words of consecration and allowed to stand on its own. It’s making a statement about **what just happened **in the consecration.

JR, you’re losing me. The words have a new meaning.They do not refer to what just happened at the consecration. The liturgy does not say: Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith: The Eucharist is the Paschall Mystery"
Even the commission that wrote the New Mass admitted that when removed from the consecration it will have a new meaning.
" it would change the meaning of the words in question, since they are no longer connected with the consecration of the chalice"

 

[JReducation]

JR, you’re losing me. The words have a new meaning.They do not refer to what just happened at the consecration. The liturgy does not say: Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith: The Eucharist is the Paschall Mystery"
Even the commission that wrote the New Mass admitted that when removed from the consecration it will have a new meaning.
" it would change the meaning of the words in question, since they are no longer connected with the consecration of the chalice"

The change that they were speaking about was that it would clarify for people that the words of consecration are “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”. When they say “new” meaning. They really meant that the Mysterium Fidei would no longer be misunderstood as part of the words of consecration, but as a reference to what just happened. They refer to the fact that through the consecration the Paschal Mystery is fully present before us. We have transcended time and space. We can see the Christ who has died, who has risen and who will come again.

I find the new order of the words to be beautiful.

Is this better? I hope.

JR

 

[AJV]

JR, you’re losing me. The words have a new meaning.They do not refer to what just happened at the consecration. The liturgy does not say: Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith: The Eucharist is the Paschall Mystery"

The new liturgy does not strictly speaking, orient Mysterium Fidei as referring even to the acclamation. That is special to the English translation. The Latin reads

(Hoc facite…
Mysterium Fidei. [note the full stop]
Acclamation)

As for the Anglicans, you can see Protestant works to find that they do not oppose “mysterium fidei” in the Canon (understood according to *their *meaning). That is what I am trying to say. The mystery of faith, even when placed within “Hic est enim…” is not univocal but equivocal.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=Lazerlike42;3677032]Our Refuge,

I understand your sincere desire to defend the faith. It’s wonderful. The only problem is that in this particular case, you’re wrong about what you are saying. Your arguments essentially discount the entire Eastern Church going all the way back to the time of the apostles. They have always placed the *Mysterium Fidei *outside of the Consecration.

It’s not that I am trying to defend the faith. I just don’t see any reason to remove the words and then put them outside the consecration where they have a new meaning. Aquinas had no issue with Mystery of Faith. As I pointed out, the commission also wanted to remove the sign of the cross from the beginning of Mass because it was not found in “liturgical tradition”.
Surley you don’t agree with that conclusion? It seems to me they wanted to purge the New Mass from anything they could that was associated with the Traditional Latin Mass.

 

[Lazerlike42]

It’s not that I am trying to defend the faith. I just don’t see any reason to remove the words and then put them outside the consecration where they have a new meaning. Aquinas had no issue with Mystery of Faith. As I pointed out, the commission also wanted to remove the sign of the cross from the beginning of Mass because it was not found in “liturgical tradition”.
Surley you don’t agree with that conclusion? It seems to me they wanted to purge the New Mass from anything they could that was associated with the Traditional Latin Mass.

Well it doesn’t really matter what the commission wanted to do. What matters is what they did. What they wanted to do wasn’t protected by God, but what they did, was.

Aquinas didn’t need to have an issue with the mystery of faith for there to be any reason to move it. He was defending it, after all. The thing is, the reason that he says it’s there is not what you are putting it forth as meaning. His interpretation of it is much more in line with the meaning that you say the Pauline Missal gives it.

That’s the point. It can’t be said to have a new meaning now, because there was no definitive answer - either an official Church answer, or a consensus among theologians or liturgists - as to what the meaning in the Tridentine Missal actually was.

And again, the place it has now is the same place as it has had in the Eastern Canons since apostolic times - so the claim that it is an apostolic tradition just doesn’t stand up. If moving it was bad, then that would seem to mean that all of the Eastern Canons are in some way bad, too.

 

[JReducation]

It’s not that I am trying to defend the faith. I just don’t see any reason to remove the words and then put them outside the consecration where they have a new meaning. Aquinas had no issue with Mystery of Faith. As I pointed out, the commission also wanted to remove the sign of the cross from the beginning of Mass because it was not found in “liturgical tradition”.
Surley you don’t agree with that conclusion? It seems to me they wanted to purge the New Mass from anything they could that was associated with the Traditional Latin Mass.

Yes, but this is not about defending the Tridentine form or challenging it. And we know that when changes are being made, whether in the Church our at the Corporation, committees are going to place many things on the table. Some things work and others do not. Eventually, the leadership has to pick and choose from what’s on the table.

This is what happened with the Novus Ordo. A lot of ideas were put on the table, not because people had some sinister agenda. They were put on the table, because they were asked to look at the liturgy and think. Then they were asked what their thoughts were. From there the Holy See selected the better ideas and discarded the rest.

We have to move toward charity and trust in the Church and not be so suspicious that everything is a conspiracy against tradition. Just because it’s red, not everything is a tomato.

Having come from Jewish background and a convert to Catholicism, as well as theology graduate I don’t see all of the conspiracies that so many converst from other faiths to Catholicism see.

Sometimes I read these threads and I feel like I’m reading chapters from the Da Vinci Code instead of Catholics trying to live a holy life.

How can we live a holy life, if we spend our lives hypervigilant. Holiness is peaceful and quiet. The soul is vigiliant about it’s own virute. If we concentrate on our own virtue, we would have enough to keep us busy for eternity.

JR

 

[AJV]

That’s the point. It can’t be said to have a new meaning now, because there was no definitive answer - either an official Church answer, or a consensus among theologians or liturgists - as to what the meaning in the Tridentine Missal actually was.

And again, the place it has now is the same place as it has had in the Eastern Canons since apostolic times - so the claim that it is an apostolic tradition just doesn’t stand up. If moving it was bad, then that would seem to mean that all of the Eastern Canons are in some way bad, too.

It is not found in the Eastern anaphoras. The acclamations “Mortem tuam…” and “Quotiescumque manducamus…” are found in certain Oriental liturgies, but “Mysterium fidei” is not present in the way it is in the Traditional Mass, or the NO - as an expression by itself.

 

[Lazerlike42]

It is not found in the Eastern anaphoras.

Ooops, my bad. I thought it was in some of them.

 

[AJV]

Surley you don’t agree with that conclusion? It seems to me they wanted to purge the New Mass from anything they could that was associated with the Traditional Latin Mass.

Not so much that but because they wished to return to a more simple form. They were taken up with the idea of early Rome and early Church. The first drafts, if you look at them, are barebones. To some extent, their ideas were shaped by what was called by Edmund Bishop, at the beginning of the 20th century, the “sobriety and sense” of the Roman liturgy. You can read the full essay at archive.org but here is an extract from what he wrote.

Nothing, then, can possibly be more simple than the composition (mind, I am not now speaking of ceremonies) of the early Roman mass, say about the middle of the fifth century. The singing of a psalm, the ‘introit’, by the choir at the beginning, on the entry of the clergy; a prayer or collect said by the celebrant; followed by readings from the Bible separated by a psalms sung by the choir which we call the “gradual’. After the collection of the offerings of bread and wine from the people, during which the choir sing another psalm-our ‘offertory’-the celebrant reads a second collect having reference to the offering of gifts Next comes, as an introduction to the great action of the sacrifice, what we call the preface, said by the celebrant and followed by a solemn choral song of praise to God the Sanctus. Then follows the great act of sacrifice, itself embodying a consecration, viz. the prayer called the Canon. As a preparation for the communion of the priest and people the celebrant says the Lord’s Prayer, adding a few words which are, as it were, the echo of that holy prayer, our Libera nos quaesumus. Then comes the communion of the people, during which a psalm is sung by the choir, which we call the ‘communion’. Finally the celebrant says a third collect, our ‘post-communion’, and the assembly is dismissed. It is to be observed that these collects are extremely short; three or four lines, as we have them in our missal to-day. What can be more simple? It is the mass reduced to its least possible expression. There is not a single element that is not essential unless, indeed, it were contended that the readings from the Bible, and the preface and Sanctus together with the singing of psalms at the entry of the clergy, before the gospel, and during the acts of collecting the offerings and the communion, are superfluous.

In this schema, and according to the mindset of many of the members of the commission, there was no room for things introduced later like the sign of the cross, the preparatory prayers, the concluding prayers, the Offertory prayers, and so forth - essentially all the Gallician additions to the Mass. You’ll probably know this, but at one point for example, it was proposed to delete the entire opening of the Mass upto the Collect- the Kyrie would be relocated at the prayers of the faithful, and the Gloria relocated to the dustbin. The entire Offertory prayers were scrapped with the exception of In spiritu humilitatis, and a prayer from the Didache was proposed. Eventually, all the things that were added back in were usually for ‘pastoral reasons’ - the Confession now as part of a communal “penitential rite”, the prayers before Communion, the Orate Fratres, the final blessing, etc.

There are still those liturgists who wish the sign of the cross to be omitted, arguing that it duplicates the Trinitarian greeting and that the liturgical greeting is more suited for beginning the Mass.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Having come from Jewish background and a convert to Catholicism, as well as theology graduate I don’t see all of the conspiracies that so many converst from other faiths to Catholicism see.

Sometimes I read these threads and I feel like I’m reading chapters from the Da Vinci Code instead of Catholics trying to live a holy life.

How can we live a holy life, if we spend our lives hypervigilant. Holiness is peaceful and quiet. The soul is vigiliant about it’s own virute. If we concentrate on our own virtue, we would have enough to keep us busy for eternity.

JR

I think one of the most disappointing things I have come to discover as a convert is this constant griping and the constant accusations that go on concerning the Church’s conspiracy to disrespect it’s traditions and it’s ‘faithful’. I don’t get the spirit behind this, and it’s heartbreaking.

The Catholic Church is beautiful. It was beautiful 2000 years ago, even more beautiful 1000 years ago, getting even more beautiful 500 years ago and it’s so much more so today. It’s breathtaking. And you all are missing it.

Some of you may very well go to your graves not seeing that, what a waste of your life as a Catholic. You take for granted what is right here and now, which is the Holy Spirit doing his work, ever living and ever breathing life into his Church.

I just don’t get it.

 

[JReducation]

I think one of the most disappointing things I have come to discover as a convert is this constant griping and the constant accusations that go on concerning the Church’s conspiracy to disrespect it’s traditions and it’s ‘faithful’. I don’t get the spirit behind this, and it’s heartbreaking.

The Catholic Church is beautiful. It was beautiful 2000 years ago, even more beautiful 1000 years ago, getting even more beautiful 500 years ago and it’s so much more so today. It’s breathtaking. And you all are missing it.

Some of you may very well go to your graves not seeing that, what a waste of your life as a Catholic. You take for granted what is right here and now, which is the Holy Spirit doing his work, ever living and ever breathing life into his Church.

I just don’t get it.

I would like to know if all of this discussion is leading people to more contemplative prayer, greater acts of charity and mercy, greater penances, a greater desire for peace in the world, better family life, a more mystical union with Christ when not at mass, a greater appreciation for God’s grace in our lives, more compassion toward those who are more vulnerable in society, a deeper life of penance, a greater love for the cross, a more quiet life with more time dedicated to spiritual reading (not theology), more time spent on the Liturgy of the Hours, more hours before the Blessed Sacrament, a stronger desire for Christian unity, more tolerance for those who sin, greater forgiveness for the Church and becoming better mirrors of perfection.

If we’re not working on all these levels, the form of the mass is not going to make a bit of difference, because we will not know holiness in its purest form. Regardless of the form of the mass, we will not be making proper use of its grace.

Let’s spend more time discussing holiness and less time trying to control what is clearly out of out control. Such a desire to control only wear out the soul and the mind and bears little witness to the Gospel.

JR

 

[Lazerlike42]

I would like to know if all of this discussion is leading people to more contemplative prayer, greater acts of charity and mercy, greater penances, a greater desire for peace in the world, better family life, a more mystical union with Christ when not at mass, a greater appreciation for God’s grace in our lives, more compassion toward those who are more vulnerable in society, a deeper life of penance, a greater love for the cross, a more quiet life with more time dedicated to spiritual reading (not theology), more time spent on the Liturgy of the Hours, more hours before the Blessed Sacrament, a stronger desire for Christian unity, more tolerance for those who sin, greater forgiveness for the Church and becoming better mirrors of perfection.

If we’re not working on all these levels, the form of the mass is not going to make a bit of difference, because we will not know holiness in its purest form. Regardless of the form of the mass, we will not be making proper use of its grace.

Let’s spend more time discussing holiness and less time trying to control what is clearly out of out control. Such a desire to control only wear out the soul and the mind and bears little witness to the Gospel.

JR

JR, I agree with you overall. However, I would quibble with you a bit. This sort of discussion, provided it remains intellectual and not a series of ad hominems or the like, can be very beneficial to the life of faith. Intellectual discussions of the faith, the Liturgy, and other such things are not the be-all and end-all of a person’s life of faith, but they can play a big role. The Dominican spirituality is actually one in which studying and the intellectual side of faith is a part of their prayer life. For Thomas Aquinas for example, every last tiny theological point he makes in the Summa and every objection he gives a reply to served not merely as a matter of his intellect, but as something that was the gateway to a greater expression of love in the rest of his life, because every last point in his work was one more thing he understood about God, and the more we know God in our intellect, the more we will know God in our hearts, provided that we do not make our faith an exclusively intellectual exercise. So long as we are trying to love Jesus Christ in our lives, every bit of knowledge that we gain in these discussions leads us to that love in a fuller sense.

I find that this is the case for me as well. I have long periods of time where I get away from coming to this forum, and I can tell you that my faith suffers greatly when I do. These discussions really build me up. This one in particular has helped me to so much more greatly appreciate the Mass and each individual part of it and prayer in it when I attend.

 

[catharina]

I think one of the most disappointing things I have come to discover as a convert is this constant griping and the constant accusations that go on concerning the Church’s conspiracy to disrespect it’s traditions and it’s ‘faithful’. I don’t get the spirit behind this, and it’s heartbreaking.

The Catholic Church is beautiful. It was beautiful 2000 years ago, even more beautiful 1000 years ago, getting even more beautiful 500 years ago and it’s so much more so today. It’s breathtaking. And you all are missing it.

Some of you may very well go to your graves not seeing that, what a waste of your life as a Catholic. You take for granted what is right here and now, which is the Holy Spirit doing his work, ever living and ever breathing life into his Church.

I just don’t get it.

Jeanette, I can share the same surprise and disappointment at discovering such heavy-handed criticism of the Church, especially by those who are lifelong Catholics. I’m a lifelong Catholic myself, baptized at six weeks of age (after it became obvious that winter storms in Chicago weren’t going to be clearing out any time soon). That means I’ve been a baptized Catholic for more than 62 years, but the angst and complaints that are hurled on CA are as bad as what I’ve seen among the most radically liberal Catholics. I agree with you, this is very sad for all and such a waste of grace, blessings and thanksgiving. How it happened, I don’t know either.