Great study defending the Pauline/Ordinary Form Roman Rite Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spyridon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Spyridon

Guest
I found a great study showing how the Mass of Paul VI, aka the Pauline, Ordinary Form, or Novus Ordo Mass is fully orthodox and in line with traditional, Apostolic Catholic usage.

It deals with everything from the increase in Biblical readings, to standing to receive Communion, to the vernacular tongue and celebrating versus populum, and everything in between.

An excerpt about Communion in the hand:

"Communion in the hand. It seems at the present time (for some reason: probably culturally relative) to often foster a more irreverent and casual attitude than receiving on the tongue, and it wasn’t urged by Vatican II. Almost everyone in my parish receives on the tongue. The historical evidence in favor of it from the early Church, however, is surprisingly strong. It seems to have been widespread and perhaps even predominant (my emphases throughout):

That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned. . . . St. Dionysius of Alexandria, writing to one of the popes of his time, speaks emphatically of “one who has stood by the table and has extended his hand to receive the Holy Food” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, ix). "

Read more at:

 
Last edited:
Question, when switching the mass to the vernacular, why did they not just keep everything else the same, and say it in lingua Franca of whatever country? Why all the other differences.

ETA: I’m genuinely curious not trying to argue lol it’s somethig I’ve wondered for awhile.
 
Last edited:
The great irony, of course, is that the first uproar over changing the Mass came when it was switched to the vernacular: that is, from Greek to Latin.

It is one thing to complain when the rules are not followed, but the Popes know what is and is not a valid Mass. he riders in the back of the bus need to quit presuming it is their job to hand out credentials.
 
You’re welcome @(name removed by moderator).

Study this document assiduously!
 
Why would a study be needed when 99% (if not more) attend this Mass over any other?
 
There’s a vocal minority that questions it’s validity. I assume it’s to counter them.
 
The only thing that would affect validity would be the words of consecration. I thought they fixed it.
 
ProVobis said:
The only thing that would affect validity would be the words of consecration. I thought they fixed it.
Click to expand...
Many people would disagree with that.

Questions like “is it heretical to receive in the hand?” are asked here weekly almost.

This study is important for use in apologetics.
 
Heresy has little to do with validity.

When it looks like the key doctrinal points of Trent have been undermined, all they’re worried about is communion in the hand?
 
Last edited:
Do you happen to know the answer to my original question? Or is it just because “they felt like it”
 
@JanSobieskiIII
Because the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium (this Sacred Council), ordained that the Liturgies of the Roman Rite were to be revised.

From the Introduction, paragraph 4:

“Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.”

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
 
Ok fair enough. I was just curious if there were more goals than just the vernacular, which apparently there was. Works for me.
 
SC was promulgated in 1963, and then the Pauline Mass was promulgated in 1969.
These two things were the culmination of almost 100 years of reform, called the Liturgical Movement which sought to bring the Mass back into a more ancient form, increase usage of vernacular tongues, and encourage active participation of the laity, amongst other goals.

Significant reforms in the Liturgies of the Church were made also during the Pontificates of St. Pope Pius X and St. Pope John XXIII.

Bl. Pope Paul VI brought those reforms to a crescendo, then Ven. Pope John Paul I, St. Pope John Paul the Great, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and our Holy Father Pope Francis have all worked to fully implement and realize those reforms, and modify them when necessary.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.”
Click to expand...
“In the light of sound tradition” I take that to mean following the teachings of Trent?
 
Following the teachings of Trent, the Pontiffs and Doctors post-Trent, the teachings of Vatican I, the Liturgical Movement and the Saints and Pontiffs of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Tradition didn’t magically jump from Trent to VII.

It organically developed over the centuries between those two great Councils.
 
Last edited:
A few years ago our abbot gave us a wonderful talk about why the Mass had to be reformed. One is largely due to the many accretions that accumulated over the years and lost their significance.

However if you read Sacrosanctum Concilium in conjunction with the other Vatican II documents particularly on the role of the laity, it becomes clear that the Mass of Paul VI fits into this theology where the people are meant to be active participants as part of the “priesthood of all believers”, all part of a move to de-clericalize the faith.

Spyridon is right to point out that this was the summit of the Liturgical Reform movement that started some 100 years earlier, and started to pick up steam under Pius X who issued the first major reforms to the Church’s liturgy: reform of sacred music, particularly Gregorian chant (Graduale Romanum, Vatican Edition 1908), and reform of the Divine Office (reforms of 1910). And Pius X was categorical about no going back. When he promulgated the new Divine Office he immediately made the old one illicit, no exceptions. Paul VI introduced the Liturgy of the Hours but made the old one still licit to help older clergy transition to the new form.

Versus populum Mass also started, experimentally on a larger scale, much earlier than Vatican II, at the pontifical athenaeum and abbey of Sant’ Anselmo in Rome, in the 1940s.
 
OraLabora said:
Versus populum Mass also started, experimentally on a larger scale, much earlier than Vatican II, at the pontifical athenaeum and abbey of Sant’ Anselmo in Rome, in the 1940s.
Click to expand...
Amen to all you said.

Versus Populum also has certain usages tracing back millenia, not centuries.
 
Ok so another question, what do you mean by “de-clericalize” and “priesthood of all believers” I’m assuming you don’t mean that in the Protestant sense that we’re all the clergy/priesthood?
 
OraLabora said:
However if you read Sacrosanctum Concilium in conjunction with the other Vatican II documents particularly on the role of the laity, it becomes clear that the Mass of Paul VI fits into this theology where the people are meant to be active participants as part of the “priesthood of all believers”, all part of a move to de-clericalize the faith
Click to expand...
The High Mass of pre-Vatican II era encouraged participation if not of the congregation, at least a choir where one learned how to participate.

The Low Mass seemed to have steered its congregation into a different direction.
 
Last edited:
Good question. I think the meaning of the “priesthood of the laity” has been misunderstood to undermine the role of the clergy. So much so, it’s no surprise at the decline of the number of priests since VII.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top