Confused about Sacrosanctum Concilium

[JKirkLVNV]

The evil one.

If the Mass of Paul VI is the result of the “Spirit of Vatican II,” and the “Spirit of Vatican II” is from the evil one, then are we to conclude that the Mass of Paul VI is from the evil one?

 

[Ghosty]

youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8
Go here.
Some of it is in dispute but it is an interesting watch.

I must admit that if the “Tridentine Mass” is ever celebrated in my parish the way it was portrayed in that film, it will be the last time I attend the TLM. If it was performed anything like that in the 60s, I can understand why reform was viewed as a necessity.

The N.O. depicted in that film was far more reverent and beautiful, IMO. The man’s got a point about the architecture, though, no doubt about that.

Peace and God bless!

 

[netmilsmom]

If the Mass of Paul VI is the result of the “Spirit of Vatican II,” and the “Spirit of Vatican II” is from the evil one, then are we to conclude that the Mass of Paul VI is from the evil one?

I don’t think that the Holy Mass of Paul VI is from the evil one but I do think that the innovations put into it are. It’s a matter of a liturgical committee or individual priest doing it better than the Pope. After reading through the “Roamin’ Catholic” column on “San Diego” thread and finding only one parish that does it right in all four years of entries, makes me shudder.

You know I love the NO as much as you do, but I love it as I have it. And I am very blessed. If all one gets is an innovative NO that has hokey music and hand gestures, I can understand why someone would think that the TLM is from heaven and the NO is from somewhere else.

What we have to realize is that it’s not the masses but rather the “I can do better” attitude that brought us to where we are today. When Holy Mass becomes a theater and not a celebration of the Holy Eucharist, weak Catholics may think, why not hit the local Evangelical church. Sure as I sit here, it’s much friendlier than the local Catholic church and it feels the same.

God Bless those in San Diego, they need it.

 

[scylla]

If the Mass of Paul VI is the result of the “Spirit of Vatican II,” and the “Spirit of Vatican II” is from the evil one, then are we to conclude that the Mass of Paul VI is from the evil one?

That would follow if proper presentation of the new Mass is evil. What most people are at odds with the the current implementation of the New Mass.

If it was done, as it should be done, then there wouldn’t be so many gripes as it would make sense. It probably will take a while for the “spirit of Vatican II” to die out.

It continues to infect the Church and thinking of many people.
It might not be so bad out there in Las Vegas but out here in Southern California we see it everywhere.
A constant denial of Jesus in the Eucharist with an emphasis on we being the Body of Christ. Our priorities are mixed up and it shows.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[mshealy]

I don’t have a problem with the NO. I have a problem with some churches which clearly don’t follow the GIRM, the rules promulgated by the USCCB, etc. A lot of people criticize the NO and Paul VI, but I believe it is unfair. Most of the masses in question aren’t even in accord with the GIRM and other mandatory rubrics and that is the problem. No one has ever explained to me exactly why the NO (done in accord with the GIRM and other mandatory rubrics) is wrong or contrary to the historic catholic faith, and the reason for this is that the NO is faithful to Catholicism. It is no criticism of the NO to criticize masses that aren’t proper under the NO (and the GIRM).

 

[Resurrexit]

If the Mass of Paul VI is the result of the “Spirit of Vatican II,” and the “Spirit of Vatican II” is from the evil one, then are we to conclude that the Mass of Paul VI is from the evil one?

Ha ha! I was wondering if someone would pick up on that.

What I meant was this. Satan does all he can to harm the church. In my opinion, the changes in the liturgy have had a very negative effect on the church, and were probably given the prompt by the evil one.

But this does NOT mean to say that the Novus Ordo Mass is Satanic or anything like it. I attend the NO (albeit not through choice) 3-4 times a week. Although there are no abuses, it is far from beautiful and awe-inspiring.

mshealy:

I don’t have a problem with the NO. I have a problem with some churches which clearly don’t follow the GIRM, the rules promulgated by the USCCB, etc. A lot of people criticize the NO and Paul VI, but I believe it is unfair. Most of the masses in question aren’t even in accord with the GIRM and other mandatory rubrics and that is the problem. No one has ever explained to me exactly why the NO (done in accord with the GIRM and other mandatory rubrics) is wrong or contrary to the historic catholic faith, and the reason for this is that the NO is faithful to Catholicism. It is no criticism of the NO to criticize masses that aren’t proper under the NO (and the GIRM).

Here we are. A concise criticism of the Novus Ordo Mass, celebrated precisely according to the rubrics. Written by Cardinal Ottaviani and a proper team of Catholic liturgists, who petitioned Paul VI not to promulgate the Novus Ordo Missal. Ottaviani Intervention

 

[mshealy]

Well, that was in 1969 and, neither John Paul II nor Pope Benedict have issued directives to change it. I guess time will tell? Clearly JPII didn’t think it was bad enough to change. Maybe Pope Benedict will get around to it someday if he thinks its bad enouigh??? I wonder if Pope Benedict’s papacy lasts (and I hope it lasts a long time) for, at least, a number of years and he doesn’t fix the mass, if traditionalists will finally warm to the NO?

 

[AJV]

Here we are. A concise criticism of the Novus Ordo Mass, celebrated precisely according to the rubrics. Written by Cardinal Ottaviani and a proper team of Catholic liturgists, who petitioned Paul VI not to promulgate the Novus Ordo Missal. Ottaviani Intervention

Well, that was in 1969 and, neither John Paul II nor Pope Benedict have issued directives to change it.

(Just a nitpick first: Cardinal Ottaviani did not write it)

Most of the arguments of the Intervention deal with the GIRM. In 1969 the new Order of the Mass came out (no collects, or special liturgies but just the “ordinary” part of the Mass i.e. from “In the name of the Father…” to “The Mass is ended…” ) and the new GIRM on which the critical study is based.

Pope Paul VI then had a series of General Audiences in the month of November in which he spoke of the Mass. He made a reference to how:

the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition.

In 1970, the entire Roman Missal came out with a GIRM that became the first editio typica. In this GIRM, there were changes to the following paragraphs:

7,30, 32, 48, 55d, 56(a),59,60,76, 80c,95, 99, 109, 117,120, 121, 125,143, 153(sub.1), 157, 158, 158(a), 158(c), 158(d), 208, 234(a), 235, 242(sub. 4) , 242(sub.7), 242(sub.8(b)), 242(sub.14), 276, 283,290, 298, 299, 300, 308(a), 308(b), 315, 316, 319, 322(e), 329(a), 330, 332, 333, 334, 336, 337.

A lot of these were merely corrections of spellings or were rubrical ones that did not have anything really to do with the Intervention (e.g. when such and such Mass could be said). Some of the ones of note were:
the mention of the bell and incense (in response to queries- 109 and 235) and the communion paten (80(c) and 117)
No. 56 added the words “properly disposed” when referring to the communicants and no.276 adds the word “adoration” when speaking of prayer before the Blessed Sacrament reserved.
No. 120 was edited to reflect the introduction of the prayer “Quod ore” into the Order of the Mass.

However, the main ones were 7, 48, 55d, and 60 which were added to contain doctrinal precisions on the priest acting “in persona Christi” and the Mass as a Sacrifice. Though indeed one should note that the Sacrifice was spoken of in number 2, 55e, 153 and 259 to name a few. Number 55e in particular, is explicit in saying that “in this memorial, the Church-and in particular the Church here and now assembled-offers the spotless Victim to the Father in the Holy Spirit”

In addition the prooemium (introduction) was published which can be said to directly clarify many of the objections of the Ottaviani Intervention of the GIRM.

However the arguments against the prayers of the Mass are not so easy and one can defend them.

Anyhow here are my thoughts on some parts of the Ottaviani Intervention

1. Ultimate end: In the first place, the author seems unaware that the preface for the Most Holy Trinity was said only on Trinity Sunday in the 1570 missal and that the change putting it to Sundays without a preface was one made 2 centuries later. Furthermore, the Trinitarian objective is achieved through the prayers of the Mass made to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. That is the way Rome traditionally did everything-and the way it is seen in most prayers of the Mass- the prayers directly addressing the Trinity were borrowed from Galician which in turn borrowed them form the East.
2. The sacrifice is still found in the Super obalta (which was the original Offertory prayer)I don’t think the faithful are bound to communicate in the NO either.

But no. 3-5 has:

This is the reason why Christ the Lord instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood and entrusted it to the Church, his beloved Bride, as the memorial of his passion and resurrection………………The presence and active participation of the people bring out more plainly the ecclesial nature of the celebration. But even when their participation is not possible, the Eucharistic celebration still retains its effectiveness and worth because it is the action of Christ and the Church, in which the priest always acts on behalf of the people’s salvation.

And additionally in the 1970 IGMR we read:

in the words and actions of Christ, that sacrifice is celebrated which He Himself instituted at the Last Supper, when, under the appearances of bread and wine, He offered His Body and Blood, gave them to his apostles to eat and drink, then commanded that they carry on this mystery.

Agin the ommission of the Offertory also be explained by looking at the way in which it was structured both in Rome and the liturgies from where it was borrowed (here).
It is not necessarily good to get rid of things, or to have a purist menality, but it is not as if the ommisions point to difference in doctrine.

 

[AJV]

The Offertory prayers retained do not anticipate the Sacrifice in the way those omitted did. This can be yet another reason

Passing over, for a moment on his comment of the undeterminess of the phrase “bread of life”………………

“Which sacrifice is referred to?” The answer is in the no.55 (e. and f.)

……the Church-and in particular the Church here and now assembled-offers the spotless Victim to the Father in the Holy Spirit…… the intercessions make it clear that the Eucharist is celebrated in communion with the entire Church of heaven and earth and that the offering is made for the Church and all its members, living and dead, who are called to share in the salvation and redemption purchased by Christ’s body and blood.

Ottaviani Intervention:

The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is totally ignored.

……. when, under the appearances of bread and wine, He offered His body and blood……IGMR no. 55d

This definition “under the appearances of bread and wine” is nothing but transusbtantian, no? Although this paragraph was changed, the same phrase appeared in the 1969 IGMR.
Ottaviani Int.:

The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity (“Veni Sanctificator”) that He may descend upon the oblations, as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.

The Holy Spirit is not invoked because He is invoked in the Eucharistic prayers. e.g. EP III

………….and so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the Body + and Blood of Your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ……….

I think the above fits in quite well with the stated objection.
Ottaviani Intervention:

Note, too, the suppressions:
of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one, with certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration; of the purification of the priest’s fingers in the chalice; of the preservation from all profane contact of the priest’s fingers after the Consecration;

Perfectly true….but I would also opinion that the fact that the priest is genuflecting at all shows a belief. Another thing is that in the TLM the practice was to genuflect both when the chalice was uncovered and then covered again.

of the pall protecting the chalice; of the internal gilding of sacred vessels;

IGMR 294: Vessels made from metal should ordinarily be gilded on the inside if the metal is one that rusts; gilding is not necessary if the metal is more precious than gold and does not rust.

And note also that no. 120 instructs that vessels left on the alter be properly covered, and no 80 that the chalice be covered before with a chalice veil.

of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of the priest and people, a logical enough complement to Communion standing);

Hmmmm…could someone point me to where the priest in the Traditional Mass is directed to kneel in an act of thanksgiving? I can see no such direction in the Ritus servandus which goes straight from the ablutions to the postcommunion without mentioning thanksgiving anywhere. (A logical argument can be made the postcommunion is thanksgiving [more so in Lent] beside petition. But the postcommunion prayer is said standing)

And the people only “may” sit “if this seems helpful”.(no. 21). No obligation.
Ottaviani Int.:

The altar is almost always called ‘table’, “The altar or table of the Lord, which is the center of the whole Eucharistic liturgy” (no. 49, Cf. 262).

The word “Lords’s table” or “table of God” is used 5 times in the ENTIRE IGMR. 2 of those times in a manner similar to this:

At the altar the sacrifice of the cross is made present under sacramental signs. It is also the table of the Lord and the people of God are called together to share in it.

and the other one as given above, and the last when it describes receiving communion from “the table of the Lord”

By contrast in Chapter I ALONE, altar is used 13 times. So how is altar “almost always called table?”

 

[AJV]

Ottaviani Int.:

The formula of Consecration. The ancient formula of consecration was properly a sacramental not a narrative one. This was shown above all by three things:
a) The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the Pauline insertion “mysterium fide)” was an immediate confession of the priest’s faith in the mystery realized by the Church through the hierarchical priesthood……….

The anamnesis (“Hace quotiescompque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis”), which in Greek is “eis emou anamnesin” (directed to my memory.) This referred to Christ operating and not to mere memory of Him, or of the event: an invitation to recall what He did (haec… in mei memoriam facietis") in the way He did it, not only His Person, or the Supper. The Pauline formula ("Hoc facite in meam commemorationem) which will now take the place of the old—proclaimed as it will be daily in vernacular languages will irremediably cause the hearers to concentrate on the memory of Christ as the ‘end’ of the Eucharistic action, whilst it is really the ‘beginning’.

So if one does use the Scriptural (and still the Words in the NO do not correspond exactly for the Consecration of the Chalice: the word aeterni is not in Scripture) that is grounds that they are not intending those words to be a sacramental one?

Very strangely, I can name a number of other liturgies that also use “Hoc facite……”. The Coptic liturgies, some of the Syriac ones, and some liturgies not in use today. To cite a Western liturgy, the Mozarabic. Does the author mean to say that in all these “‘commemoration’ will certainly once again take the place of the idea of sacramental action”?
Ottaviani Intervention:

The narrative mode is now emphasized by the formula “narratio institutionis” (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis, in which it is said that “The Church recalls the memory of Himself”. (no. 556) [sic: 56]

[In the 1970 IGMR: it reads: “narratio institutionis et consecratio”]

Furthermore, who bows when narrating something, and then elevates and genuflects in the middle of his “narration”?

And the anamesis does call to mind: IIRC, the relevant part in the Roman Canon begins “Unde et memores”

Furthermore the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after the Consecration: (“We announce thy death, O Lord, until Thou comes”") introduces yet again, under cover of eschatology, the same ambiguity concerning the Real Presence. Without interval or distinction, the expectation of Christ’s Second Coming at the end of time is proclaimed just at the moment when He is substantially present on the altar, almost as though the former, and not the latter, were the true Coming.
This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of optional acclamation n. 2 (Appendix): “As often as we eat of this bread and drink of this chalice we announce thy death, O Lord, until thou comes”", where the juxtaposition of the different realities of immolation and eating, of the Real Presence and of Christ’s Second Coming, reaches the height of ambiguity.

In fact, the memorial acclamations are borrowed from other liturgies. They may not be in the tradition of Rome, but no, there is ZERO problem with the wording. One should look at other liturgies like:

Mozarabic:

Sac.:Hoc e+st Corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur (He elevates the Host
Quotiescumque manducaveritis, hoc facite in meam + commemorationem.

Sac.: Hic e+st calix novi testamenti in meo sanguine qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. (He elevates the chalice
Quotiescumque biberitis, hoc facite in meam + commemorationem.

Choro: Amen

Sac. Quotiescunque manducaveritis panem hunc et calicem istum biberitis, mortem Domini annuntiabitis donec veniet. In clari+tatem de coelis.

This + is My Body which will be delivered for you.
As often as you shall eat: do this in commemoration + of Me
This + is the chalice of the New Testament in My Blood, which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.
As often as you shall drink: do this in commemoration + of Me
As often as you eat this bread and drink from this chalice, you proclaim the death of the Lord, till He come. In glory + from heaven.

In the West Syriac liturgies, in the same place (i.e. after the Words of Institution), the priest adds a sentence and the people respond
[as an example: Anaphora of Mar Xystus: And furthermore He added this admonition, saying: So often as you communicate of these, you do make remembrance of My death, My burial and My resurrection until I come.]
People: Your death O Lord we commemorate, Your resurrection we confess and Your Advent we await. May Your mercy be on us all.

 

[AJV]

**Coptic: **
For whenever you shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup, you proclaim my death, confess my resurrection and remember me till I come.
People: Amen, Amen, Amen. Your death, O Lord, we proclaim. Your holy resurrection and ascension, we confess. We praise You, we bless You, etc.

And there are more examples, among the Ethiopians, the Ambrosian liturgy, the East Syriacs and so forth.

But according to the author, in all these liturgies (some of them quite ancient): “the juxtaposition of the different realities of immolation and eating, of the Real Presence and of Christ’s Second Coming, reaches the height of ambiguity”. I would say must be especially true for the Mozarabic where they say it THREE times and moreover, at the elevations. But to move on………

Regarding the special role of the priest, and the supposedly indispensable role of the congregation according to the author, IGMR (1969), I, 4:

The presence and active participation of the people bring out more plainly the ecclesial nature of the celebration. But even when their participation is not possible, the Eucharistic celebration still retains its effectiveness and worth because it is the action of Christ and the Church, in which the priest always acts on behalf of the people’s salvation.

I’m confused: how exactly is the priest an intercessor with God in the old Confiteor? Surely not by saying the Misereatur since that is also said by the server. Not by asking for his prayers because he asks for the prayers of the servers/ministers also, which would make them intercessors on his behalf. And surely not by the reference “et tibi Pater” because in the presence of one of greater dignity, he too says when making his confession “et tibi Pater”
Ottaviani Intervention:

The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments (in certain cases the alb and stole are sufficient—n. 298) obliterate even more the original conformity with Christ: the priest is no more clothed with all His virtues, become merely a noncommissioned officer" whom one or two signs may distinguish from the mass of the people: “a little more a man than the rest”, to quote the involuntarily humorous definition of a modern preacher

In fact, when introducing vestments: the IGMR says “In the Church, the Body of Christ, not all members have the same function.”. And it does not allow the omission of the chasuble in ordinary cases.

The phrase “through Christ our Lord” is only omitted (and that too, may be omitted, at the option of the priest) in the Canon. It occurs elsewhere.

The omission of the angels: in the first place, I fail to see how not mentioning the angels and saints by name demotes them- firstly because many Confiteors used the West don’t have them named except for the BVM. If anything, a weak argument could even be made that the new Confiteor distinguishes between the Blessed Virgin and the saints.

No preface in the Traditional Missal mentions all 9 in the hierarchy of angels. The number ranges from 2 to 5. Moreover the preface of EP II is often subsitiuted by a Proper Preface, and in any case it mentions “with all the choirs of angels”.

I cannot also see, despite its lamentable omission, how the absence of the names of Ss. Peter and Paul compromises the unity of the Church. Especially since in all the Eucharistic Prayers there is a petition for the Pope and for the local bishop.In addition, outside the Canon Ss. Peter and Paul are not invoked in the other Western liturgies (e.g. Confiteor Deo, Suscipe Sancta Trinitatis) and surely that did not show their lack of unity with the Pope?

And in the Order for Mass without a server and only the priest, I think the priest still says “The Lord be with you……lift up your hearts……let us give thanks……” at the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer.

Unleavened bread is required in the IGMR.

Finally, there is the concelebration mania, which will end by destroying Eucharistic piety in the priest, by overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole Priest and Victim, in a collective presence of concelebrants.

Not in the least. In the first place because concelebration was present in the Church long before that, in the second because it is present at the Traditional ordination. Insofar as all the priests stand in persona Christi they are one. Or is it that each priest must have an individual altar for it not to overshadow Christ as sole Priest and Victim?