An Archbishop Lefebvre Question

[pnewton]

Just asking a question: Why were Protestants even observing?

Why not? The Catholic Church is not a cult. We do not need to do things in secret behind closed doors.

 

[Rogerteder]

For the last time, “novus ordo” is NOT the name of the Mass. All new editions of a missal are a “novus ordo,” be it the latin missal or the Missal of Pope Paul VI. Each new missal is technically a “novus ordo”, a “new order of the Mass.” “Novus ordo” is NOT a title!!!

I have not read one opinion here that suggests we do such a thing.

question: Whenever a new missal was presented such as the missal of 1962–was it caled a “New Order of the Mass”–??? I didnt think it was----I could be wrong------I thought it was called a new missal or the missal of Pope such and such… I didnt know it was called “New Order of the Mass.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

**First of all: The Church cannot protest against Herself. She can promulgate nothing in Her laws, disciplinary or otherwise, that go against Her teaching. The above is CATHOLIC teaching which is what we are supposed to go by, not visceral responses, not our “feelings.” There is nothing ontologically “protestant” about the Church today, in particular the Mass as it is written ansd as it OUGHT to be celebrated. **

true she didnt protest against herself she removed all items and customs that cause controversy. **Hardly. The doctrines and dogmas of the Church are still stumbling blocks for a great MANY outside the Church. Witness the difficulties with Anglicanism going on right now. **i disagree with the feelings part… sorry… God gave me feelings to let me know when something doesnt smell right. ive attended one too many OF that didnt smell right to trust them anymore. as far as disciplines go, as i stated before a few back, disciplines mean very little to people who attend the OF. they would have to because they are here today gone tomorrow. maybe if they replaced them with something equally gratifiying to God but they dont… they just take take take. the OF because of this way of thinking has so many different types of masses its just absolute craziness. its no different than changing protestant services. i dont like what goes on at this church or how this priest does something so ill just go to the other one the next 15miles over. **But feelings are not facts and much of what you state is based on feelings…you feel like the Mass is Protestant…never mind the FACT that it isn’t…you feel like the Mass was devised by Protestants and freemasons…never mind the FACT that it wasn’t (and that FACT has been demonstrated to you more than sufficiently). **
i have been attending an EF now for 14yrs and never once did i find it distasteful or lacking of reverence or hear a priest say something or do something completely off the wall. and the best part way more women than dont dress modestly and the men atleast wear something that calls for dress shoes to match. **Wow, the first EF I attended DID put me off…the SSPX priest called the OF (Novus Ordo) an “abomination” …twice. Now, I know that it is a FACT that that priest is not the sum total of the EF, regardless of how I FEEL. I’m able to seperate the two. **

**a fundamentalist. Churches of the Anabaptist and Calvinist traditions (all the Baptists, the Presbyterians, Churches of Christ (Campbellites), etc., receive Holy Communion while seated in their pews, the elements being passed to them on trays. Those of the Anglican tradition (Episcopal and Methodist), when I attended for five years 20 years ago (well after the “Protestant Mass” had come in…well, guess what? THEY KNELT AT A RAIL FOR HOLY COMMUNION. Knelt…at a rail. The only time they didn’t were at diocesan conventions, which gatherings they deemed to be to large and unwieldy and which more often than not were held at auditoriums or even Baptist churches. I did not attend Lutheran services, so I cannot speak to that. **

all this tells me is that even these other religions could see that the sanctuary is sacred and the communion rail should not be crossed… WHAT you mean they kneel receiving communion and it isnt even really God because the priests are not consecrated to do so? … oh yeah, they dont believe that . they believe they are receiving Jesus Christ… wait even protestants believe that communion is sacred enough that you should kneel? how pius of them . but catholics dont… they dont have to dress like they are going to see Christ and they dont have to kneel when they stand before Christ… but protestants do… am i the only one confused by this?

**There has been a problem with “wreakovation,” but what you complain of isn’t what makes the Church Catholic. **

nope all you need is a valid priest, introductory rite, liturgy of the word, liturgy of the Eucharist, and concluding rite, and in that order… how you do them, well that just discipline right?

**Well, yeah, you’re kind of confused, because you keep saying the Mass is Protestant and was created by Protestants and Freemasons. **

**And yes, that is “just” discipline (it happens to also be important). It’s really too bad that you weren’t there with the Apostles so you could remind them of what they SHOULD have included in the Apostolic Truth and Tradition that they handed down. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

By the way, does anyone here have proof that protestants and freemasons were not involved in writting the New Mass? I do not believe that to be true, but saying the argument is absurd or false is not an argument. Can someone share any background on this so we know for future reference?

Actually, the person who makes the charge is obligated to supply proof, under common law. No proof exits that protestants helped, nor freemasons. The Protestant observers and the Holy See both deny the truth of the accusation. There is no proof that Archbishop Bugninni was a Freemason. The Holy See denied that he was.

If mere assertion was sufficient proof to condemn or damn us, we’d all be in a great deal of trouble.

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And what, pray tell, are real protestants like?

See Post #81 for some descriptives, but what they are “like” is as varied as the myriad denominations that make them up. They do not have “one” style. And much of what the liturgical Protestant ecclessial communities have in terms of worship that IS similar to our worship (and yes, even the EF, if you read the vernacular translation) is the result of COMMON ROOTS…they draw on the same sources. Luther didn’t throw out everything, Cranmer didn’t, etc.

The classic term “Protestant” relates only to the historic Reformation (or “Deformation,” if you like, historically and factually, it’s the same thing). We don’t generally call people who protest against the Church today (from the SSPX to Bishop Gumbleton and Fr. Richard O’Brien) “protestant.” We call them dissidents.

 

[maurin]

And what, pray tell, are real protestants like?

well for starters they removed *most mentions *of the Communion of Saints, the Sacrificial Priesthood, The Eucharist as Sacrificial Victim from the Mass, as well as remove any distinctions between the Sacrificial Priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful. To be clear, I’m talking about the protestants, and not Eucharistic Prayers 2, 3 and 4.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

well for starters they removed *most mentions *of the Communion of Saints, the Sacrificial Priesthood, The Eucharist as Sacrificial Victim from the Mass, as well as remove any distinctions between the Sacrificial Priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful. To be clear, I’m talking about the protestants, and not Eucharistic Prayers 2, 3 and 4.

The OF has not lost the above. How many times do you have to say a thing for it to be true? If the EF says each thing five times, can’t we then improve the EF by saying each thing ten times? How many signs of the Cross bless or consecrate? Wouldn’t a listing of the entire canon of saints be more effectual or faithful than the relative few that even the EF includes?

 

[CassiusLonginus]

well for starters they removed *most mentions *of the Communion of Saints, the Sacrificial Priesthood, The Eucharist as Sacrificial Victim from the Mass, as well as remove any distinctions between the Sacrificial Priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful. To be clear, I’m talking about the protestants, and not Eucharistic Prayers 2, 3 and 4.

Wow. Just, wow. LOL.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

The OF has not lost the above. How many times do you have to say a thing for it to be true?

Although I find the humor in what Maurin said, technically the reply was talking about protestants. You know it was funny.

If the EF says each thing five times, can’t we then improve the EF by saying each thing ten times? How many signs of the Cross bless or consecrate? Wouldn’t a listing of the entire canon of saints be more effectual or faithful than the relative few that even the EF includes?

Hmmm, perhaps, but you’ll have to consult with nineteen centuries of clerics and saints who slowly and prudently developed the Mass to get a definitive answer. Lemme know what they say.

I have another idea. Let’s scrap the Novus Ordo and replace it with the Novus Novus Ordo, and pare it down to not one extra word or gesture or musical note.

 

[maurin]

The OF has not lost the above. How many times do you have to say a thing for it to be true? If the EF says each thing five times, can’t we then improve the EF by saying each thing ten times? How many signs of the Cross bless or consecrate? Wouldn’t a listing of the entire canon of saints be more effectual or faithful than the relative few that even the EF includes?

keep on repeating that to yourself, Kirk, if it helps you sleep at night. But whatever you do, don’t compare the Eucharistic Prayers 2, 3 and 4 with the proper Roman Canon. licit doesn’t always equal good. or proper.

 

[maurin]

I have another idea. Let’s scrap the Novus Ordo and replace it with the Novus Novus Ordo, and pare it down to not one extra word or gesture or musical note.

isn’t that what has been done 3 or 4 times now in the last 40 years?

 

[maurin]

Hmmm, perhaps, but you’ll have to consult with nineteen centuries of clerics and saints who slowly and prudently developed the Mass to get a definitive answer. Lemme know what they say.
.

no, a commission of liturgists in the 60’s was far more valuable to modern man than nineteen centuries of Tradition. They were so old fashioned. the commission was hip, and spoke the lingo of the youth.

 

[pnewton]

licit doesn’t always equal good. or proper.

True. One is an objective criteria, the other two subjective.

 

[aicirt]

I think Lefebrvre did the right thing. He saw the rot, and acted to stop it. Modernism erupted like a fever in the body of the Church, having been previously kept at bay by the ‘antibiotics’ of good Popes, which parts of the Hierachy eventually became immune to.

• How many readers now groan inwardly at the thought of things like ‘outdoor concelebrated folk masses’?
• How many automatically ‘tune out’ when their priest preaches on ‘social issues’?
• When was the last time you heard a sermon on Hell and how you can end up there?
• Do you cringe when you see the Body Of Christ doled out like bread by lay-women?

I have a pal who assisted at the only Latin Mass Triduum said in the whole of Britain one year in the 70’s. It was in a cupboard room in a hotel, if I remember correctly. People came from all over the world to attend.

I for one have had enough of priests trying to be trendy. A TLM in every parish early on a Sunday with some good catechesis in the sermon would be a nice change.

I haven’t seen a folk Mass, but I have seen pictures of dancers in the church. Shocking! And the priests? What are they thinking?
I watch a lot of EWTN. Love the sermons and the catechesis. I listen to the priests on TV and receive communion at my parish.

 

[maurin]

True. One is an objective criteria, the other two subjective.

actually, no. that’s not right. “licit” can be as subjective–disciplines are subject to change. Eating meat on Fridays was once illicit, now it is licit–but how many Catholics substitute a suitable form of penance on Fridays?

your assessment is incorrect.

A Pope has the legal right to do things he may choose not to do because he doesn’t have the moral right to do them. This of course is hypothetical, although as an example, I’m sure most Traditionalists would agree that Paul VI had a legal right to change the Mass, but not the moral right to do so.

 

[pnewton]

actually, no. that’s not right. “licit” can be as subjective–disciplines are subject to change. Eating meat on Fridays was once illicit, now it is licit–but how many Catholics substitute a suitable form of penance on Fridays?

Being a licit act does not mean it is unchangeable. As you put it.

"Eating meat on Fridays was once illicit, now it** is** licit–but how many Catholics substitute a suitable form of penance on Fridays? Your very word are indicative mode as opposed to subjective.

All you show is that what is licit can change, which of course it can.

 

[maurin]

Being a licit act does not mean it is unchangeable. As you put it.

"Eating meat on Fridays was once illicit, now it** is** licit–but how many Catholics substitute a suitable form of penance on Fridays? Your very word are indicative mode as opposed to subjective.

All you show is that what is licit can change, which of course it can.

but now your changing the course of the conversation. It centered on the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, which you didn’t get right. I used those scenarios to illustrate that.

 

[pnewton]

but now your changing the course of the conversation. It centered on the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, which you didn’t get right. I used those scenarios to illustrate that.

I am not. I regret you do not see the difference between “objective” and “unchangable.” One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[maurin]

I am not. I regret you do not see the difference between “objective” and “unchangable.” One has nothing to do with the other.

you regret that, do you?

regrets are like hairs on the head. Most people have them.

 

[EnchantedEve]

“I have written on other threads that I attend the New Mass (which name, Novus Ordo, by the way, comes from the preliminary draft of the Paul VI missal in 1969),”

Actually, you did say it and you are still wrong in using Novus Ordo as a name for Pope Paul’s Mass.

“A deep interest in fostering the liturgy has become widespread and strong among the Christian people and our predecessor Pius XII has viewed this both as a sign of God’s caring will regarding today’s people and as a saving movement of the Holy Spirit through his Church.[2] Since the beginning of this liturgical renewal, it has also become clear that the formularies of the Roman Missal had to be revised and enriched. A beginning was made by Pius XII in the restoration of the Easter Vigil and Holy Week services;[3] he thus took the first step toward adapting the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality.”
*
“No one should think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has come out of nowhere. The progress in liturgical studies during the last four centuries has certainly prepared the way. Just after the Council of Trent, the study “of ancient manuscripts in the Vatican library and elsewhere,” as St. Pius V attests in the Apostolic Constitution “Quo primum,” helped greatly in the correction of the Roman Missal. Since then, however, other ancient sources have been discovered and published and liturgical formularies of the Eastern Church have been studied. Accordingly many have had the desire for these doctrinal and spiritual riches not to be stored away in the dark, but to be put into use for the enlightenment of the mind of Christians and for the nurture of their spirit.*”

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MISSAL.HTM

I see that the hostility is never going to end. I was merely pointing out where the name Novus Ordo comes from. I do not call it that. I refer to it as the New Mass for convenience, since the Mass of Paul VI seems awkward to always type, and not everyone knows EF and OF.

Pope Paul VI could say what he wished regarding liturgical renewal, but the results of the last few centuries of liturgical research do not turn up the same results as the New Mass. Does anyone see Eastern Rite influence in the New Mass? I know someone earlier mentioned the prayer of St. Hippolytus, but this is only partially true, the rest of the prayer was contrived onto a latin translation of this prayer. Another prayer “Blessed are you, Lord, God of all Creation…” comes from a Jewish prayer. Would anyone walk into a New Mass and confuse it for a Byzantine Mass? Chaldean? Syro-Malabar? No, I do not think so. The original intent was good (I personally find the changes of 1955 in the Holy Week brilliant) but the other results I am afraid leave me with concerns. Of course, I do not place this opinion on the consciences of other as some do, however I can seen where it would be thought that protestant and freemasonic principals influence the direction of the New Mass, even if not the protestants and freemasons themselves. Some changes, like the loss of ad orientem and heavy or even exclusive use of vernacular, while not official, seem to be inspired by a general change of principals, as well as a perceived greater liberty in rubrical formulation. We as Catholics may feel that Rome meant well, but the fact that the rest of the world perceived it otherwise cannot be merely from misunderstanding, but appears to stem from a genuine inculcation of modern spirit in the liturgy by Church leadership. Why else would every modern European language except Polish and Portuguese mistranslate the latin text? Why else would ad orientam be abandoned worldwide when not ordered? Why the “wreakovations” and the despicable letter from the bishops’ conference Environment and Art in Catholic Worship? The list could go on. Obviously, something did change with the New Mass, and I perceive that the inorganic development of the New Mass contributed greatly to troubles that we are experiencing today, as well as the misunderstandings. If the New Mass was promulgated no differently than Quo primum, why do we witness an uproar with the New Mass, but did not with the Tridentine form? If the change was not so big, how come everyone thought it was?