Debate: Novus Ordo vs. TLM; Traditional vs. Traditionalist

[roncriss]

Your point is moot because we obedient traditional Catholics, who lack the spiritual pride necessary to abandon thousands of years of Christian tradition and the faith handed down from the Apostles in favor of nonsense such nonsense as clown masses and liturgical dancing, are truely the ones who have not adopted the warm fuzzies fo modernism. Disobedience to the Magesterium has never been the Catholic faith.

This demonstrates the error of traditionalism. The Tridentine Rite was not handed down from the Apostles. I have met Traditionalists who have insisted that our Lord and the Apostles originally spoke Latin and that the Bible was translated from this Latin into Greek. Traditionalism is all about a disobedient clinging to the aesthetic of a particular historical era, not received tradition. It places personal preference over catholicity. Perhaps if Traditionalists really knew their history they would not have chosen the name of a past heresy to lable themselves.

St Paul would not have recognized the Tridentine Rite any more than he would the Novus Ordo. I’ve never been to a clown mass and never witnessed liturgical dancing. Neither was condoned or suggested by Vatican II. You have abandoned the primary received tradition that makes one “Catholic”; obedience and submission to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the Pope. Lacking this you are no different than Protestants who think that God has allowed the gates of hell to prevail over His Church and seek to correct her. The difference is that Protestants don’t pretend to be Catholics.

Ron

[Moderator Note: The reference to traditional Roman Catholicism spurred enough posts that were sufficiently off-topic to create a new thread from them. Please http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208141”]see here for the original discussion.]

 

[East_and_West]

This demonstrates the error of traditionalism. The Tridentine Rite was not handed down from the Apostles. I have met Traditionalists who have insisted that our Lord and the Apostles originally spoke Latin and that the Bible was translated from this Latin into Greek.

Uh, NO!!! We don’t think that the Tridentine rite was handed down from the Apostles nor that the Apostles spoke latin. However, we do feel that the Tridentine rite expresses the faith much more clearly than does the NO. That doesn’t mean I have a problem with the NO or that I think its invalid. On the contrary, I think that the NO is quite beautiful when celebrated properly, ad orientum, with actual sacred music (as opposed to the secular “Christian Music” we see in mass now days), and done so according to the rubrics. You assume quite a bit about what I think.

Traditionalism is all about a disobedient clinging to the aesthetic of a particular historical era, not received tradition. It places personal preference over catholicity. Perhaps if Traditionalists really knew their history they would not have chosen the name of a past heresy to lable themselves.

No!!! Traditionalism is about maintaining the Catholic faith, obedience to Christ’s vicar, and not throwing away what we have recieved from the Apostles, Saints, Church Fathers, and Councils. We understand that historical circumstances often shape the style of liturgy and music but there are actual documents from Popes that state, absolutely, that the highest forms of music that should be used in the mass are Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony. This has nothing to do with preferences. I don’t know where you earned you master’s degree but one thing they should have taught you is the Catholic principle: Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi. It means the law of prayer is the law of faith. When we water down the litrugy to suit shallow modern sensibilities we water down the faith. Plain and simple.

St Paul would not have recognized the Tridentine Rite any more than he would the Novus Ordo. I’ve never been to a clown mass and never witnessed liturgical dancing. Neither was condoned or suggested by Vatican II. You have abandoned the primary received tradition that makes one “Catholic”; obedience and submission to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the Pope. Lacking this you are no different than Protestants who think that God has allowed the gates of hell to prevail over His Church and seek to correct her. The difference is that Protestants don’t pretend to be Catholics.

Ron

I am obedient to the magesterium, so I have no Idea what you are talking about. In fact, Pope Benedict is one of my personal heros. I think that A. You should stop assuming what traditionalists are or what they believe and B. You should read a great book called “The Spirit of the Litrugy” by a great author, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. It might clear up quite a few things for you.

 

[roncriss]

I am obedient to the magesterium, so I have no Idea what you are talking about. In fact, Pope Benedict is one of my personal heros. I think that A. You should stop assuming what traditionalists are or what they believe and B. You should read a great book called “The Spirit of the Litrugy” by a great author, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. It might clear up quite a few things for you.

I mentioned before that I distinguish between Traditionalists who are schismatic and traditionalists (small “t”) who feel the tug of traditional aestehtics yet remain loyal. But how can you call yourself loyal to the Magisterium and Catholic tradition while going contrary to the decision of an approved ecumenical council that the Liturgy needed to be reformed? An ecumanical council approved by the Pope is traditionally considered infallibe. Aren’t you then, in effect, telling the Holy Spirit He was wrong to mandate reform by clinging to the old rite and resisting the reform?

Ron

 

[East_and_West]

I mentioned before that I distinguish between Traditionalists who are schismatic and traditionalists (small “t”) who feel the tug of traditional aestehtics yet remain loyal. But how can you call yourself loyal to the Magisterium and Catholic tradition while going contrary to the decision of an approved ecumenical council that the Liturgy needed to be reformed? An ecumanical council approved by the Pope is traditionally considered infallibe. Aren’t you then, in effect, telling the Holy Spirit He was wrong to mandate reform by clinging to the old rite and resisting the reform?

Ron

First of all, when did it say that the Litrugy NEEDED to be reformed? Second, the magesterium is NOT infallible when dealing with pastoral issues. It is only infallible when it says the faithful must believe X or Y or may not believe A or B. I think you need to study the concept of infallibility in greater detail. Third, I never said that there is anything wrong with the Novus Ordo. Although I think theology is expressed more clearly in the Tridentine Liturgy (remember Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi) I still believe the Novus Ordo is just fine when celebrated correctly (which it hardly ever is) and, in fact, is quite beautiful. The only thing traditionalist like myself have a problem with is the misuse of the Novus Ordo, which is why you will often find us at the Tridentine Liturgy intstead. It is not nearly as abused as the Novus Oro is. I really think you have a very skewed understanding of what it means to be a Catholic Traditionalist. I think you need to read two things. First, read the Pope’s recent document allowing greater use of the Tridentine Liturgy (do you think he was wrong to do this?). Second, Read his book Spirit of the Liturgy. I think you will find your perspective is not the perspective of the Church, her Magesterium, or of Sacred Tradition. You have so many misconceptions, I wish I could discuss them in person with you.

 

[Alexios]

East and West is right. There was nothing doctrinal or dogmatically binding in Vatican II, by John XXIII’s (or maybe Paul VI’s?) own admission. It was intentionally a “pastoral council.”

And perhaps the Roman liturgy did need some reform. Perhaps a bit more vernacular could have been introduced? Perhaps the people should’ve been more encouraged to vocally and externally participate (even though inner participation is just as much participatio actuosa, of course), especially in regards to the chanting. Perhaps Low Mass was too much the norm (and I believe it was). But NONE of that has anything to do with the sad piece of Freemasonic and Protestant thought that is the Pauline Missal of 1970.

The Mass of 1965, while still ditching many things I consider to be very important to the liturgy, was much, much closer to the intent of the Council than the Mass of 1970.

There has to be organic development of the liturgy. This is not just a suggestion, it is a requirement. It cannot be any other way. And since the 1970 Ordo Missae is the farthest thing from organic, it is my opinion that is must be totally and completely ditched, and we will have to start back at an organic base (namely the Mass of 1962), while still appreciating some of the positive things that’ve become more commonplace like fewer 25 minute Masses. I firmly believe that the New Mass will eventually be tossed out. I don’t see how anything else is possible.

 

[roncriss]

First of all, when did it say that the Litrugy NEEDED to be reformed? Second, the magesterium is NOT infallible when dealing with pastoral issues. It is only infallible when it says the faithful must believe X or Y or may not believe A or B. I think you need to study the concept of infallibility in greater detail. Third, I never said that there is anything wrong with the Novus Ordo. Although I think theology is expressed more clearly in the Tridentine Liturgy (remember Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi) I still believe the Novus Ordo is just fine when celebrated correctly (which it hardly ever is) and, in fact, is quite beautiful. The only thing traditionalist like myself have a problem with is the misuse of the Novus Ordo, which is why you will often find us at the Tridentine Liturgy intstead. It is not nearly as abused as the Novus Oro is. I really think you have a very skewed understanding of what it means to be a Catholic Traditionalist. I think you need to read two things. First, read the Pope’s recent document allowing greater use of the Tridentine Liturgy (do you think he was wrong to do this?). Second, Read his book Spirit of the Liturgy. I think you will find your perspective is not the perspective of the Church, her Magesterium, or of Sacred Tradition. You have so many misconceptions, I wish I could discuss them in person with you.

EW,

1. “This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”
2. "Wherefore the sacred Council judges that the following principles concerning the promotion and reform of the liturgy should be called to mind, and that practical norms should be established.

"Along with the revision of the liturgical books, as laid down in Art. 25, there is to be an early revision of the canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provision of material things involved in sacred worship…

"23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral…
Constitution on Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium)

Now you should know that the decrees of an ecumenical council which are approved by a pope are considered infallible. Some make a lot of noise about the purpose of this council being “pastoral” it is not infallible. But there is nothing in sacred tradition that renders pastoral councils (virtually all councils have some pastoral purpose) less authoritative.

Ever since the time of the Apostles the results of an ecumenical council have been considered to represent the will of the Holy Spirit. So, to reject the notion that the liturgy was in need of reform is to have the audacity to attempt to correct not only the Pope and the council fathers, but the Holy Spirit Himself.

There is nothing wrong wth the NO when performed with proper reverence. I agree it was abused for many years by “progressive” priests and bishops. But to cling to the Tridentine Rite to the point of disobedience to the Magisterium is not the Catholic way.

I also agree that the NO could be further revised, for example in the translation from the Latin. Let’s see what this Pope will accomplish.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

East and West is right. There was nothing doctrinal or dogmatically binding in Vatican II, by John XXIII’s (or maybe Paul VI’s?) own admission. It was intentionally a “pastoral council.”

This is an old cannard. There is nothing mutually exclusive between “pastoral” and “binding”, or “infallible” for that matter. Search as you might you will not find any quote from the Pope or decrees of the council that it was any less authoritative than any other ecumenical council. This weak wordplay is the best the traditionalists can come up with to justify their disobedience and rejection of the Council decrees, which amounts, to my mind, to disobedience to the Holy Spirit.

The Tridentine Rite was itself the product of a liturgical reform suitable for its time. The 50s and 60s were simply not the golden age imagined by young traditionalists and nostalgic elderly ones. Few understood Latin. Many slept thru the Mass or recited rosaries, not participating, being little more than disinterested spectators. Saints such as Pius X called for reform for just this reason, the purpose being to make the laity participants in the Mass, not merely present. So, yes, in that respect the reform was pastoral.

Reform was needed. The Holy Spirit and the Magisterium ordered it. That’s good enough for me. I lack the temerity to think that the whole Church and the Holy Spirit should bow to my fallible judgement and aesthetic tastes.

Ron

 

[Alexios]

No one is advocating clinging to the Traditional Mass in disobedience.

There are tons of things wrong with the Novus Ordo, properly celebrated or not. Eucharistic Ministers, a myriad of choices of what to say, numerous places where the priest can insert his own comments outside the homily, the possibility of celebrating ad populum, Communion in the hand, etc. But most importantly, it is not organic development of liturgy and therefore even if it were much, much better than the Traditional Mass it would still nevertheless be against the spirit of liturgy and Tradition.

The Second Vatican Council said nothing new of a dogmatic nature. All earlier councils dealt specifically with dogma/doctrine, not just pastoral modifications.

 

[roncriss]

East and West is right. There was nothing doctrinal or dogmatically binding in Vatican II, by John XXIII’s (or maybe Paul VI’s?) own admission. It was intentionally a “pastoral council.”

And perhaps the Roman liturgy did need some reform. Perhaps a bit more vernacular could have been introduced? Perhaps the people should’ve been more encouraged to vocally and externally participate (even though inner participation is just as much participatio actuosa, of course), especially in regards to the chanting. Perhaps Low Mass was too much the norm (and I believe it was). But NONE of that has anything to do with the sad piece of Freemasonic and Protestant thought that is the Pauline Missal of 1970.

The Mass of 1965, while still ditching many things I consider to be very important to the liturgy, was much, much closer to the intent of the Council than the Mass of 1970.

There has to be organic development of the liturgy. This is not just a suggestion, it is a requirement. It cannot be any other way. And since the 1970 Ordo Missae is the farthest thing from organic, it is my opinion that is must be totally and completely ditched, and we will have to start back at an organic base (namely the Mass of 1962), while still appreciating some of the positive things that’ve become more commonplace like fewer 25 minute Masses. I firmly believe that the New Mass will eventually be tossed out. I don’t see how anything else is possible.

At my NO Yahoo group I have a file which shows a side-by-side comparison of the old and new rites:

groups.yahoo.com/group/novusordomissae/

If you join you can access it thru the Files menu. I see that the Liturgy has been stream-lined, but there is little new. Changes are primarily of wording and therefore, in my opinion, organic. Additionally there are more prayers available. The core is the same. I would prefer the translation to be less pedestrian and more eloquent, but that is a matter of taste, not essentials.

Can the liturgy be further reformed? Certainly. But there is no reason to can it and start over. THAT would NOT be organic. The NO achieved its intended purpose. The laity can understand and are involved with the Liturgy. They pray the liturgy. They don’t spend time praying rosaries or going around to side altars while the priest does his thing. In this respect the reform has been a resounding success, despite the abuses by overzealous liberal priests and bishops, which are, for the most part, a thing of the past.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

No one is advocating clinging to the Traditional Mass in disobedience.

There are tons of things wrong with the Novus Ordo, properly celebrated or not. Eucharistic Ministers, a myriad of choices of what to say, numerous places where the priest can insert his own comments outside the homily, the possibility of celebrating ad populum, Communion in the hand, etc. But most importantly, it is not organic development of liturgy and therefore even if it were much, much better than the Traditional Mass it would still nevertheless be against the spirit of liturgy and Tradition.

The Second Vatican Council said nothing new of a dogmatic nature. All earlier councils dealt specifically with dogma/doctrine, not just pastoral modifications.

Alexios,

I don’t like the use of eucharistic ministers, more accurately “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”, any more than you do. Priests who use them routinely are going contrary to instructions. They are to be used only in extreme circumstances and are not to commune on the altar as if they were concelebrants.

"[A] 1997 document goes beyond merely stressing that extraordinary ministers should be reserved to extraordinary circumstances. It spells out that “certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated.” Thus, “the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass is to be avoided and eliminated.”

“The 1997 document also states that the practice of “extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants” should be eliminated.”

“The new Latin Roman Missal released in May 2002 also addresses some of the abuses associated with extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. The Missal, the English translation of which is underway, notes that extraordinary ministers are not to assist in the transfer of consecrated hosts and the Precious Blood to sacred vessels, nor are they to retrieve the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle and return the remaining consecrated hosts to the tabernacle.”

from: catholicinsight.com/online/church/liturgy/article_470.shtml

The use of extraordinary ministers should be extraordinary. I realize this practice is abused, but is to be blamed on lax and lazy priests, not the NO itself which does not require it.

As for priests inserting their own comments, again that is not the fault of the ritual because they are not following it. They could just as easily insert comments in the Tridentine Rite and it could not be blamed on the ritual since they are disobeying the clear instructions.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

No one is advocating clinging to the Traditional Mass in disobedience.

There are tons of things wrong with the Novus Ordo, properly celebrated or not. Eucharistic Ministers, a myriad of choices of what to say, numerous places where the priest can insert his own comments outside the homily, the possibility of celebrating ad populum, Communion in the hand, etc. But most importantly, it is not organic development of liturgy and therefore even if it were much, much better than the Traditional Mass it would still nevertheless be against the spirit of liturgy and Tradition.

The Second Vatican Council said nothing new of a dogmatic nature. All earlier councils dealt specifically with dogma/doctrine, not just pastoral modifications.

I should add that communion in the hand is not wrong. That’s the way Our Lord instituted it. The exclusion of the laity from the cup was a later innovation. The oriuginal practice was to receive in the hand, but, like the cup, was restricted in order to avoid mishaps of spilling or dropping.

I have never received communion in the hand simply because it is not necessary. One time I noticed that a small piece of the consecrated host was left unnoticed on the floor after communion. As the mass proceeded I jumped up and ate it myself before someone could unknowingly trample it. This is the sort of abuse that results from the casual use of extraordinary ministers. I would be quite happy to eliminate their use altogether, though it would certainly slow down the mass and require more work by the priests themselves.

Ron

 

[Alexios]

Ron,

No, certainly the abuse of EME’s is not the fault of the Novus Ordo, but unfortunately just the spirit that often accompanies it.

But the NO does allow for a priest to use opening and closing comments. It is not few and far between in the NO Missal where it states, “Other worse may be used here,” “Something similar can be said,” etc.

And CITH was a practice in the early Church, yes. But many things were practiced in the early Church that are no longer viewed as acceptable today because we’ve come a long way in understanding things…everything from clerics dressing differently from laypersons to knowledge that CITH leads to particles of our Lord falling on the floor and abuse in modern culture especially since so many people do not understand the Eucharist properly. Would you also support clerics dressing in modern-day lay garb? That kind of thing, as is CITH in my opinion, is very misguided archeologism/antiquarianism.

 

[roncriss]

Ron,

No, certainly the abuse of EME’s is not the fault of the Novus Ordo, but unfortunately just the spirit that often accompanies it.

But the NO does allow for a priest to use opening and closing comments. It is not few and far between in the NO Missal where it states, “Other worse may be used here,” “Something similar can be said,” etc.

And CITH was a practice in the early Church, yes. But many things were practiced in the early Church that are no longer viewed as acceptable today because we’ve come a long way in understanding things…everything from clerics dressing differently from laypersons to knowledge that CITH leads to particles of our Lord falling on the floor and abuse in modern culture especially since so many people do not understand the Eucharist properly. Would you also support clerics dressing in modern-day lay garb? That kind of thing, as is CITH in my opinion, is very misguided archeologism/antiquarianism.

No, I don’t support clerics wearing modern garb. I prefer the symbolism. But I don’t think it would be inherently wrong. We can assume that Our Lord wore common garb at the Last Supper. And it was he who instituted communion in the hand. So I don’t think we can suggest that we’ve come along way from His understanding.

Where in the GIRM does it allow the priest to use other words or similar words? That would be an invitation to some priests to blab!

Ron

 

[roncriss]

No, certainly the abuse of EME’s is not the fault of the Novus Ordo, but unfortunately just the spirit that often accompanies it.

Imagine what would happen if the loyal traditionalists embraced and participated in the reform rather than running off and leaving it in the hands of progressives and liberals.

Ron

 

[Alexios]

But one can only put up with so much, Ron. I agree that it helps to “stay and fight,” but not when one’s spiritual health is seriously endangered.

Also, we don’t know for certain that Our Lord gave CITH. “He gave it to His disciples,” as the Scriptures say. Whether or not He gave it to them in their mouths or in their hands is up for debate.

Even if He did, I’m sure the disciples and Our Lord handled the Eucharist much more diligently than most people do today. That alone is enough reason to stop CITH. People abuse the heck out of it. And, as I said, the organic growth (over 1500 years ago) away from CITH resulted from the heightened awareness and devotion to the Sacred Species. No Apostolic Church gives CITH anymore with exception to the Roman Church, when it was re-introduced (another misguided antiquarianism) after over 1500/1600/1700 years of absence. How can such a slap in the face of organic development of liturgy be defended?

I’ll find exactly where the priest can issue opening or closing statements. And yes, it does allow them to blab!

 

[roncriss]

But one can only put up with so much, Ron. I agree that it helps to “stay and fight,” but not when one’s spiritual health is seriously endangered.

Also, we don’t know for certain that Our Lord gave CITH. “He gave it to His disciples,” as the Scriptures say. Whether or not He gave it to them in their mouths or in their hands is up for debate.

Even if He did, I’m sure the disciples and Our Lord handled the Eucharist much more diligently than most people do today. That alone is enough reason to stop CITH. People abuse the heck out of it. And, as I said, the organic growth (over 1500 years ago) away from CITH resulted from the heightened awareness and devotion to the Sacred Species. No Apostolic Church gives CITH anymore with exception to the Roman Church, when it was re-introduced (another misguided antiquarianism) after over 1500/1600/1700 years of absence. How can such a slap in the face of organic development of liturgy be defended?

I’ll find exactly where the priest can issue opening or closing statements. And yes, it does allow them to blab!

I would have no problem if the Magisterium decded to do away with CITH in the name of proper order and because of abuse. But there is nothing intrinsically improper or doctrinally incorrect about the practice. The earliest tradition was CITH. This is an example of where the Tridentine Rite innovates. Whether removing the cup and CITH is “organic” development is questionable.

Ron

 

[Alexios]

So have all the other Rites innovated in this regard as well? The Byzantines commune by intinction (in the mouth), as do many others. No one places Communion in the laity’s hands. So, everyone has innovated? Or have we come to a fuller appreciation of the Eucharist.

 

[stmaria]

=roncriss;3258996]At my NO Yahoo group I have a file which shows a side-by-side comparison of the old and new rites:

groups.yahoo.com/group/novusordomissae/

If you join you can access it thru the Files menu.** I see that the Liturgy has been stream-lined, but there is little new**. Changes are primarily of wording and therefore, in my opinion, organic. Additionally there are more prayers available. The core is the same. I would prefer the translation to be less pedestrian and more eloquent, but that is a matter of taste, not essentials.

How can you say that there is litte new in the New Rite… Just consider the beginning of Mass. In the OF the priest goes directly to the altar. In the Traditional Mass the priest is forbidden to go directly to the altar. He must first say the prayers at the foot of the altar where he must make his confession. Only then can he approach the altar.
The Prayers at the foot of the Altar symbolize the Agony in the Garden. A symbolism destroyed in the New Mass. The difference is amazing.

For a real comparision, link to the following.
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Is this particular symbolism vital?

 

[peregrinator_it]

For a real comparision, link to the following.
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

(Dead horse alert )

Nope-- not a good comparison.

A comparison of a translation with a REALLY bad translation is no comparison at all. If you’re going to compare, compare the Latin texts.