Gotta Love Cut-And-Paste Liturgcal Assembling

[Servus_Pio_XII]

I was using my Grandfather’s 1950 St. Joseph Daily Missal (TLM) to-day at Mass (NO), and as I followed it, I began to notice a pattern: namely, I was skipping a lot of pages…a lot a lot. This does NOT include the Asperges or anything, just the Mass itself. I was also struck by the omission of most of the Penetential Rite, which was summed up to the “Kyrie” and “Indulgentiam”, omitting the “Confiteor” (which is now: “I confess to almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters…”).

Then we got to the fun part- the prayers before and after the consecration. I was jumping about quite a bit, from part to part, with prayers which formerly were before the Consecration now being after it, and visa versa, and also some just having been tossed out entirely. A rarity occured, and the words to the “Angus Dei” were actually “Lamb of God”, which made me happy, but once again it was in a different place.

It was quite interesting to see how the Tridentine Mass has been reordered and abridged (indeed, the first three pages inclusive are of entirely no use in the Novus Ordo Mass) to make the new Mass. Neither, of course, is any different in the graces it confers, however one must wonder why substance was omitted for clarity. After all, it is God who is, ultimately, the target of the matter, not the people. So long as the people understand what is happening, I see no reason for any more clarity to be given at cost of precious intercession to God.

Comments?

 

[CantorRick]

Servus Pio XII:

I was using my Grandfather’s 1950 St. Joseph Daily Missal (TLM) to-day at Mass (NO), and as I followed it, I began to notice a pattern: namely, I was skipping a lot of pages…a lot a lot. This does NOT include the Asperges or anything, just the Mass itself. I was also struck by the omission of most of the Penetential Rite, which was summed up to the “Kyrie” and “Indulgentiam”, omitting the “Confiteor” (which is now: “I confess to almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters…”).

Then we got to the fun part- the prayers before and after the consecration. I was jumping about quite a bit, from part to part, with prayers which formerly were before the Consecration now being after it, and visa versa, and also some just having been tossed out entirely. A rarity occured, and the words to the “Angus Dei” were actually “Lamb of God”, which made me happy, but once again it was in a different place.

It was quite interesting to see how the Tridentine Mass has been reordered and abridged (indeed, the first three pages inclusive are of entirely no use in the Novus Ordo Mass) to make the new Mass. Neither, of course, is any different in the graces it confers, however one must wonder why substance was omitted for clarity. After all, it is God who is, ultimately, the target of the matter, not the people. So long as the people understand what is happening, I see no reason for any more clarity to be given at cost of precious intercession to God.

Comments?

Yah! What’s your point? They are different! Perhaps you also noticed that you, the person sitting in the assembly, are also required to do your part, fully and actively, as a member of the celebrating community.
I sometimes wonder if the TLM indult should ever have been granted.

Richard

 

[pm1853]

CantorRick:

Yah! What’s your point? They are different! Perhaps you also noticed that you, the person sitting in the assembly, are also required to do your part, fully and actively, as a member of the celebrating community.
I sometimes wonder if the TLM indult should ever have been granted.

Richard

How was he not participating? Granted, I would not bring a 1962 Missal to the current mass (it could possibly lead to confusion) but its unfair to declare him as not participating without having been there. The “TLM” indult has nothing to do with this conversation. Pointless to bring it up. I do not find myself participating any more or less when I attend a mass according to the 1962 rubrics, and to suggest that there is less participation at one or the other is ignorant. I try my best to listen, and digest what is being said (or what I am reading) at BOTH masses, isn’t that in itself “full and active participation?” (we’ve got a lot to digest).

Otherwise, I have to echo CantorRick. I mean, no offence to you or your observations, but you don’t give us any particularly new information. I would like to see a return of certain things. The importance of the number 3 I think is an important aspect of all of Christianity. I for one DON’T think that threefold repetitions are redundant, but serve as reminders of the concept of the trinity (the 3 by 3 Kyrie, the three reptitions of the confiteor (prior to 1962), the three repitions (twice) of Domine non sum dignus, etc…). I’ll be honest when I say that I don’t have a clue whether they were intended as such, but it is interesting. Things were changed, thats just a fact. However there are things about the current Mass that I do appreciate (“Lord, Hear our Prayer” section stands out especially). I guess I’m unclear of what kind of comments you are looking for. Does this help? Is there anything more specific you want us to comment on? (no sarcasm intended, I just want to know if I missed something).

 

[TEME525]

I find it very interesting to read the continued criticism of the Novus Ordo, here I am speaking of the Rite itself and not the abuses we all know happens.

What amazes me is what I preceive to be an underlying current of people denying the Church’s authority construct the Rite of the Liturgy we celebrate. I often read about the criticisms of the NO ordo who either perfer the Trenitine Right and or celebrate that Rite as their Liturgy. However, what one would assume to be Catholic Conservative is found questioning the authority and wisdom of Church Authority with the same spirit of rejection liberal Catholic reject Humanae Vitae.

Am I wrong in my assesment? If so how and more important why are there any commentary/criticism at all of the NO? (Again not the abuses but the Rite itself.)

 

[netmilsmom]

TEME525:

I find it very interesting to read the continued criticism of the Novus Ordo, here I am speaking of the Rite itself and not the abuses we all know happens.

What amazes me is what I preceive to be an underlying current of people denying the Church’s authority construct the Rite of the Liturgy we celebrate. I often read about the criticisms of the NO ordo who either perfer the Trenitine Right and or celebrate that Rite as their Liturgy. However, what one would assume to be Catholic Conservative is found questioning the authority and wisdom of Church Authority with the same spirit of rejection liberal Catholic reject Humanae Vitae.

Am I wrong in my assesment? If so how and more important why are there any commentary/criticism at all of the NO? (Again not the abuses but the Rite itself.)

I understand that there are some who want the TLM and go after the NO at every turn, but to say that Conservative Catholics disregard the “churches” authortity is not correct. Many of us just want the “If the Vatican is not specific about it, it’s okay” attitudes out of our NO liturgy. We are not against the church, we are against what Mother Angelica calls “Electric Church. Every time you go you get a shock”

I attend a parish that has an EWTN type Holy Mass. I love it and so do the close to 800 families that attend here. None of us are looking to slam our Liturgy while looking at the Missal for the TLM because we have an Historically Catholic Mass.

In some parts of the country, one would be hard pressed to find a mass without innovation, so people think of the TLM as a panacea.
Give the “Consevatives” a more reverent NO and there would be less longing for something else. When the only liturgy that one can attend has bouncing, waving and gland handing, then we get home and turn on EWTN, what do you expect??

 

[Dr.Bombay]

TEME525:

I find it very interesting to read the continued criticism of the Novus Ordo, here I am speaking of the Rite itself and not the abuses we all know happens.

What amazes me is what I preceive to be an underlying current of people denying the Church’s authority construct the Rite of the Liturgy we celebrate. I often read about the criticisms of the NO ordo who either perfer the Trenitine Right and or celebrate that Rite as their Liturgy. However, what one would assume to be Catholic Conservative is found questioning the authority and wisdom of Church Authority with the same spirit of rejection liberal Catholic reject Humanae Vitae.

Am I wrong in my assesment? If so how and more important why are there any commentary/criticism at all of the NO? (Again not the abuses but the Rite itself.)

Yes, you are wrong in your assesment.

 

[JNB]

Required? Sory, that isint in the documents that the laity is required to fully and actively participate outside of the common responses.

CantorRick:

Yah! What’s your point? They are different! Perhaps you also noticed that you, the person sitting in the assembly, are also required to do your part, fully and actively, as a member of the celebrating community.
I sometimes wonder if the TLM indult should ever have been granted.

Richard

 

[CantorRick]

JNB:

Required? Sory, that isint in the documents that the laity is required to fully and actively participate outside of the common responses.

Excuse me. If i’m sitting in a pew reading or following a missle intended for a different liturgy, I am neither fully nor actively participating in the ongoing liturgy regardless of any documents to the affirmative or contrary.

The documents of Vatican Councill II indicate the liturgy needed change to enhance and encourage the full and active participation of the faithful gathered and that’s all the documentation I need.

Richard

 

[SummaTheo]

CantorRick:

The documents of Vatican Councill II indicate the liturgy needed change to enhance and encourage the full and active participation of the faithful gathered and that’s all the documentation I need.

Richard

Just because someone isn’t screaming the responses back at the priest doesn’t mean he isn’t particpating. If you follow the missal you are particpating just as much as if not even more because you are praying along with the priest. Read what Pope St. Pius X did about participation.

 

[TEME525]

Dr.Bombay,
I may very well be wrong in my assesment and I not only have no trouble in admitting I am wrong but look forward to it, however, would you please explain why I am wrong?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

TEME525:

Dr.Bombay,
I may very well be wrong in my assesment and I not only have no trouble in admitting I am wrong but look forward to it, however, would you please explain why I am wrong?

With pleasure. If only more people were willing to allow me to explain why they are wrong.

TEME525:

What amazes me is what I preceive to be an underlying current of people denying the Church’s authority construct the Rite of the Liturgy we celebrate.

I don’t believe the OP was denying the Church’s authority. Questioning the prudence of bowdlerizing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to the point of absurdity, perhaps. But questioning the Church’s authority to engage in said bowdlerizing? I think not.

TEME525:

I often read about the criticisms of the NO ordo who either perfer the Trenitine Right and or celebrate that Rite as their Liturgy. However, what one would assume to be Catholic Conservative is found questioning the authority and wisdom of Church Authority with the same spirit of rejection liberal Catholic reject Humanae Vitae.

This is a splendid canard tossed at anyone who questions the wisdom of the post-Conciliar liturgical “reforms.” It neatly places in a box those who question a disciplinary change with those who question the Deposit of Faith. Therefore, those questions need not be addressed. Very cute. And oh so convenient. Let’s all shout loudly about the splendidness of the new Mass, screech like little girls about our new springtime and terminate with extreme belligerence anyone who raises an objection. (Because “those people” are just extremist nuts, don’t ya know?)

The abuses presented on the CA Forums are just isolated examples; most every Mass in America, indeed the world, is celebrated reverently, with Latin preserved as a liturgical language and Gregorian chant given pride of place. Every priest gives strong homilies expounding on the truths of our Faith. Most of the Catholic faithful don’t go along with our contraceptive, materialist, self-centered culture. And I’m wearing a gumdrop hat and live on Lollipop Laaaaaaane.

Or not. :nope:

 

[James0235]

I know I’ve said it before but this time I mean it. I am now officially a member of the Dr. Bombay fanclub.

James

 

[Jaypeeto4]

While I attend the New Mass regularly,
I can understand why the poster was questioning why things were deleted and moved around.
If you have a 1962 or before TLM missal with English translation on the right hand of the page, slowly read through the entire Tridentine Mass in English, and compare it to the text of the New Mass. The old liturgy is indeed much richer in prayer and Catholic doctrine (and doctrinal explicitness) than the New Mass. I can understand why so many prefer it. It is beautiful.
Love, Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[Dr.Bombay]

James0235:

I know I’ve said it before but this time I mean it. I am now officially a member of the Dr. Bombay fanclub.

James

I must start charging a membership fee.

 

[James0235]

Dr. Bombay:

I must start charging a membership fee.

Maybe you should. I can think of 2 members besides myself just off the top of my head. And I’m sure there must be more.

God bless,

James

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Excuse me. If i’m sitting in a pew reading or following a missle intended for a different liturgy, I am neither fully nor actively participating in the ongoing liturgy regardless of any documents to the affirmative or contrary.

The documents of Vatican Councill II indicate the liturgy needed change to enhance and encourage the full and active participation of the faithful gathered and that’s all the documentation I need.

Richard

Oh, you aren’t? I was. This thread is not about my devotional practises as you see fit to appraise them by extreme extrapolation. Furthermore, how many of your “full and active participants” pray the appropriate prayers before the Mass, or give Thanksgiving afterwards.

At my parish, it would be nil. They sit round in the pews chattering until the piano starts and the priest walks up to the crate (no fixed altar) with the banners round it (there is no crucifix until the processional one is brought up). Then after Mass they all rush down to get free coffee and doughnoughts for the apparent purpose of washing down the Eucharist. So, full and active participation can be defined on many levels, most of which you do not address.

People do not seem to understand the purpose of the thread. I am curious as to why the prayers are all re-ordered. Most are indeed there, true enough, but they are fiddly-switched round in quite a confusing manner. Even the Canon, which I cannot figure out why. I was wondering if anybody knew why it was decided to do this. Simple as that.

This was NOT an attack on the NO Mass, Pope Paul, or the Second Vatican Council.

I might also add that TWO personal attacks were made upon me BY THE SAME POSTER before I even had a chance to defend myself.

This is a splendid canard tossed at anyone who questions the wisdom of the post-Conciliar liturgical “reforms.” It neatly places in a box those who question a disciplinary change with those who question the Deposit of Faith. Therefore, those questions need not be addressed. Very cute. And oh so convenient. Let’s all shout loudly about the splendidness of the new Mass, screech like little girls about our new springtime and terminate with extreme belligerence anyone who raises an objection. (Because “those people” are just extremist nuts, don’t ya know?)

The abuses presented on the CA Forums are just isolated examples; most every Mass in America, indeed the world, is celebrated reverently, with Latin preserved as a liturgical language and Gregorian chant given pride of place. Every priest gives strong homilies expounding on the truths of our Faith. Most of the Catholic faithful don’t go along with our contraceptive, materialist, self-centered culture. And I’m wearing a gumdrop hat and live on Lollipop Laaaaaaane.

Or not.

joins Dr. Bombay fan club

 

[TEME525]

Dr. Bombay,

First, what I wrote was not a false rumor but a reality in that you yourself acknowledged that such people do exist, although as you pointd out they are a minority. It was about that minority I was addressing.

But further, I see something more serious than critizing a discipline as oppose to questioning a “Deposit of Faith”. Is not the Eucharistic Liturgy at the center of the life of the Church. Can there be a True Church without the Liturgy. This not a rhetorical either because even several of the Church Fathers approached this subject.

Therefore, being that the Liturgical Life and Practice of the Church is, in my opinion, central to our faith. If it was a mere question of disciple why would the Church at Vatican II address it as it did?
Also, doesn’t this criticism, even of the accidental of the Eucharistic Liturgy, call into question of the episcopal authority of the local bishop when that bishop is exercising his authority according to the guidline of the Church? Do we have the right to criticise the American Bishops, as the Teaching Authority of the
Church, in general and a bishop of a dioceese in particular, we they are acting in accordance to their rights and duty as bishop? Isn’t his type of criticism of the way the Liturgy is celebrated here in America attack the Church Magisterium here in America?

You made a comment concerning the prudence of the way the American Bishops, acting in the authority given them by the Church, have choosen to celebrate the Liturgy you used the term ‘Bowderizing’ which brings me back to my original observation. Where lies the difference in the criticism of the Teaching and epsicople (a new term added) authority of the Church on two such vital elements of the life and teaching of the Church?

As I see it, both groupes reject the authority and or wisdom of the Church, one group because of the limites of moral behavior the Church’s teaching put on them, the oter group rejects the wisom and authority of the Church, especially their Local Church because of what the Church does is aesthetically displeasing to them but but ultimately question and often reject the practice and teaching of the Church here in America.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

TEME525:

Dr. Bombay,

First, what I wrote was not a false rumor but a reality in that you yourself acknowledged that such people do exist, although as you pointd out they are a minority. It was about that minority I was addressing.

But further, I see something more serious than critizing a discipline as oppose to questioning a “Deposit of Faith”. Is not the Eucharistic Liturgy at the center of the life of the Church. Can there be a True Church without the Liturgy. This not a rhetorical either because even several of the Church Fathers approached this subject.

Therefore, being that the Liturgical Life and Practice of the Church is, in my opinion, central to our faith. If it was a mere question of disciple why would the Church at Vatican II address it as it did?
Also, doesn’t this criticism, even of the accidental of the Eucharistic Liturgy, call into question of the episcopal authority of the local bishop when that bishop is exercising his authority according to the guidline of the Church? Do we have the right to criticise the American Bishops, as the Teaching Authority of the
Church, in general and a bishop of a dioceese in particular, we they are acting in accordance to their rights and duty as bishop? Isn’t his type of criticism of the way the Liturgy is celebrated here in America attack the Church Magisterium here in America?

You made a comment concerning the prudence of the way the American Bishops, acting in the authority given them by the Church, have choosen to celebrate the Liturgy you used the term ‘Bowderizing’ which brings me back to my original observation. Where lies the difference in the criticism of the Teaching and epsicople (a new term added) authority of the Church on two such vital elements of the life and teaching of the Church?

As I see it, both groupes reject the authority and or wisdom of the Church, one group because of the limites of moral behavior the Church’s teaching put on them, the oter group rejects the wisom and authority of the Church, especially their Local Church because of what the Church does is aesthetically displeasing to them but but ultimately question and often reject the practice and teaching of the Church here in America.

Aesthetically displeasing? The Church has strictures set and permission for use of both rites, not just the one. Therefore, should we not assert the one which follows the strictures to a more precise degree in most instances than the one that does not?

A good Novus Ordo would be a very good occasion which lifts one to God. However, most in this country are, as one said, occasions for orthodox Catholics to mentally compose their letter to the bishop. Therefore, until the Church comes down hard upon the grave abuses commited in the NO, and stops acknowledging their prescence and then muttering, “please stop” with no real assertiveness, the TLM is the more reverently celebrated rite.

You see, our philosophy is a bit more autocratic. We believe in the collegial authority of the various bishoprics, but only when they act in communion with Rome. They have no other authority than to enforce what Rome delegates. To denounce a bishop or to denounce a Pope…it is your choice.

 

[TOME]

As I implied, as well as stated, my post was aimed at those who cannot differenciate between an abuse and the Rite itself. And, I do have to say that when I used the term aesthetically displeasing it was done in response to the many threads and post I have incountered here in this forum and elsewhere. Too often I have read criticisms based on aesthetics, for example, consider how often you read a post refering to the beauty of the music of the TLM as opposed to the music used in the majority of the NO masses. People do not like the music so the Rite must be wrong.

Also, in many other threads, I have read sharp criticism of bishops who, acting in the authority given them by Rome, donot allow the TLM to be celebrated, who donot grant the indult for this Rite. Too often, I have read the criticisms of these bishops go beyond a theological based criticism to personal attacks.

Actually, many of the criticisms of the NO lack a certain theological foundation at all. I say this because as we all have read through out this post the term “Full and Active participation” thinking that full and active participation is limited to ones activity during the Liturgy and that’s it. But doesn’t full and active participation also imply that one know what he is doing and why?
Shouldn’t a fully and active partipation also include the knowledge of why the changes were made and what were the theological goals for these changes. This would imply a reasonable knowledge of the Church’s teachings of the nature of the Liturgy itself.

I think, and this is just my opinion, that if one was fully active in their participation of the Mass, atleast with the NO, which here in America it is normally celebrated in the vernacular, one would not need and aide, to actively participate. And as evidence here in this thread such aides,such as a missalette or missal, could be a distraction rather than a help.

One other point, and I think it does keep within the nature of this thread, is in response to the philosophy proclaimed that (and I am infering this from what was said) conservative Catholics are more autocratic. Perhaps, but how does this philosophy relate to the principle (as opposed to the “Spirit”) of Subsidiarity expressed throughout the documents of Vatican II and in regards to this particular thread to the authority of the local bishop in the matters of the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy?