Happy 40th Birthday Novus Ordo

[rein_me_in_Lord]

Timothysis wrote:

“They are “the same” in the fact that they accomplish the same goal, the consecration of bread and wine in to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.”

For starters, the TLM (and the tradition and doctrine of the Church going all the way back to its beginning) understand pro multis to mean “for many,” not “for all.”

“They fail to see that all roads lead to Christ.”

No, we must enter in by the narrow gate—i.e., the Catholic Church. All other “roads” lead not to Christ, but to our eternal loss.

 

[franklinf]

The Remnant? No, thank you.

Tell me; if I told you that the Tridentine Missal was, when promulgated in 1570, a “new rite,” would you agree? Because that is exactly what Pope Pius V called it in Quo Primum; “this new rite.” So, even if I were to take the information you supplied from a dubious source as legitimate, it raises the issue as to whether the same action has happened in the past. Father Joseph Gelineau may have been speaking his own opinion when saying “the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists,” but Pope Pius V himself in an apostolic constitution declared the Tridentine Missal a “new rite.” So, where do we go from here???

Not the same thing at all, read the context. Not a dubious source, properly cited.

 

[Ockham]

Tim, who is displaying anger and hostility? We should be able to discuss and debate without the negative emotions.

 

[franklinf]

Unbelievable. So the whole premise of your dissatisfaction is simply the fact that the OF and the EF are just “different” in terms of the prayers that they contain? Then I suppose I must concede that point, regardless of the lack of importance in it. Obviously both forms contain differences in that the exact same words are not used in both missals, but both missals do contain all that the Church has constantly taught and held about the Mass. The OF missal is the same as the EF missal in the fact that they are both distinctly catholic; they both do what the Church, through Her apostolic authority, intends them to do, and that is to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They are “the same” in the fact that they accomplish the same goal, the consecration of bread and wine in to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. To complain that one lacks the flowery language of the other and is, therefore, somehow deficient is superficial at best and ignorant at worst.

This reminds me of protestant objections of prayers to the Blessed Mother, saying why pray to Her when we can go straight to Jesus? They fail to see that all roads lead to Christ. In the same way, both the OF and the EF lead to the same place.

That isn’t the premise of my dissatisfaction. Clearly, I find the TLM to be a better expression of the liturgy, just the most concise way to highlight differences.

Furthermore, don’t understand why you take such a Pharisaical approach to the liturgy. Mass is not just about the consecration. Is it pleasing to God? Does it express the faith? Does it express the 4 aims of Mass? Is it the Holy Sacrifice or a communal gathering?

So yes, the consecration is the same (duh), but so much more is different.

 

[rein_me_in_Lord]

Timothysis wrote:

"The Remnant? No, thank you.

Tell me; if I told you that the Tridentine Missal was, when promulgated in 1570, a “new rite,” would you agree? Because that is exactly what Pope Pius V called it in Quo Primum; “this new rite.” So, even if I were to take the information you supplied from a dubious source as legitimate, it raises the issue as to whether the same action has happened in the past."

One would be wise to read Quo Primum (and commentaries on that encyclical) oneself to see whether we are talking about apples and apples, as you, Timothysis, would have us believe, or about apples and oranges. Prior to the Council of Trent there were liturgical variations in such things as psalms and hymns associated with different episcopal sees on any given day of the Church’s year as well as variation in feast days and like matters. In that sense, there was not unanimity in the liturgy across the Catholic world. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, however, there was unanimity in the liturgy across the Catholic world, but what we have at present is anything but unity. Pope St. Pius V implemented in Quo Primum a cogent unity among liturgies that were essentially the same prior to Trent. Something else was at work in the Second Vatican Council.
And, could you please tell us precisely what is dubious about The Remnant?

 

[CradleCath]

Before NO, you could go anywhere in the world and understand the Mass. I attended a NO two weeks ago, and it was totally different than the one we have in my home parish. It wasn’t only the casualness of the Mass, but the interior looked more Protestant than Catholic.
Those Catholics will be exposed to it if they chose to attend but they can’t attend if it isn’t offered. And if the Vatican is saying both are fine, then you owe it to yourselves to experience and understand the TLM.

I believe that it’s the USCCB that’s keeping that from happening…AND the members of the laity that have been running the Church for the past 40+ years. Niether want to lose an ounce of their “power”. My Bishop is very conservative & when he came here a few years ago, he ousted many of the lay people who’d been part of the inner circle here for decades.

• Dismissed the lay chancellor who had held the position for 21 years, the vice chancellor, a religious woman stationed in the diocese for nearly 40 years, and the chief of pastoral planning since 1990, and replaced them with a priest chancellor.
• Cancelled the diocese’s lay formation programs and a master’s degree program in pastoral ministry.
• Cut in half the budget of the Center for Pastoral Life and Ministry, effectively forcing the almost immediate resignation of half the seven- member team. Within 10 months all seven would be gone and the center shuttered.
• Ordered a “zero-based study” of adult catechesis in the diocese and appointed a layman as vice chancellor to oversee adult catechesis, lay formation and the catechesis.
• Ordered the editor of the diocesan newspaper to immediately cease publishing columns by Notre Dame theologian and well-known dissenter, Fr Richard McBrien. Bishop Finn commented, “Everybody seems to make a big deal out of cancelling Fr McBrien’s column. Quite honestly, it was fairly a no-brainer for me [sic]”. The column, he said, did not match the mission of the Catholic press which was “to help people understand the message and the teaching of the Church”.

Though he is very much a champion of the Latin Mass, he’s already being persecuted (& no, the word “persecute” is not too strong.)

He’s given us several Latin Mass communities & Latin/Novus Ordo parishes like my own.
Still none of the other parishes will even mention from the pultpit OR in their bulletins the locations & times for the Latin Mass. How can people attend that Mass of the Ages if they don’t even know that we have them??

 

[Ockham]

Still none of the other parishes will even mention from the pultpit OR in their bulletins the locations & times for the Latin Mass. How can people attend that Mass of the Ages if they don’t even know that we have them??

That’s not uncommon. It calls into question the “there isn’t much demand for it” claims.

Wow. Who is your bishop!

I’ve sat on parish liturgical committees and can attest they are very political. Those with ulterior motives work diligently and relentlessly to promote their agenda. Things like liturgical dance don’t happen spontaneously. Let’s not forget Communion in the hand started in North America as an abuse, the Pope ruled against it, and yet we ended up with it as the defacto norm. How did that happen if not for behind the scenes action?

 

[pnewton]

And if the Vatican is saying both are fine, then you owe it to yourselves to experience and understand the TLM.

Traditional spirituality as experienced in the TLM is only one thing the Vatican said was fine. The Vatican has also approved the Charismatic Catholic Renewal and the Neocatecumical Way. Yet I have no desire or even a need to experience those just because they are approved. Do you likewise think every Traditional Catholic has the need to experience those in order to understand them?

 

[pnewton]

“Do you think the same sort of stipulation should apply to Byzantine, Maronite Coptic, etc., Rite Catholics?”

Why should it, pnewton? We’re talking about Latin Rite here.

I do not think it should, but then I think the question previous question had a false premise which a varity of Rites makes demonstrably false. It calls into question the whole “my Mass is better than yours”, “Mass of the Ages” and other superlatives that are used to compare other liturgies.

 

[LilyM]

Perhaps b/c the goal was to, “strip from our … Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” (Fr. Bugnini).

Funny that. The one and only time I invited a Protestant friend of mine to an NO Mass (reverently said but not particularly ‘high-church’) her one comment to me that sticks in my mind was ‘why do you Catholics have so much emphasis on ritual?’

The very fact that she said that, of course with the emphasis on ritual as if it were a dirty word or something, made this very Catholic girl’s heart sing, because in spite of my years with the banal and protestantised NO, I do appreciate the importance and significance of of the ‘rituals’ of the Mass.

So much so that I can telll you why ‘and also with you’ used to be ‘and with your spirit’ - and while appreciating the difference, I do not see that substituting one for the other detracts from the Mass. We all know the priest is ordained and what that entails - how on earth is saying ‘and with your spirit’ really changing people’s comprehension? Especially since most of the congregation, then as much as now, were not taught and didn’t bother to find out what such expressions mean.

The NO Protestantised? Not a bit of it, if the witness of my Protestant friend is to be believed, she whose forebears allegedly corrupted it.

 

[franklinf]

Funny that. The one and only time I invited a Protestant friend of mine to an NO Mass (reverently said but not particularly ‘high-church’) her one comment to me that sticks in my mind was ‘why do you Catholics have so much emphasis on ritual?’

The very fact that she said that, of course with the emphasis on ritual as if it were a dirty word or something, made this very Catholic girl’s heart sing, because in spite of my years with the banal and protestantised NO, I do appreciate the importance and significance of of the ‘rituals’ of the Mass.

So much so that I can telll you why ‘and also with you’ used to be ‘and with your spirit’ - and while appreciating the difference, I do not see that substituting one for the other detracts from the Mass. We all know the priest is ordained and what that entails - how on earth is saying ‘and with your spirit’ really changing people’s comprehension? Especially since most of the congregation, then as much as now, were not taught and didn’t bother to find out what such expressions mean.
**
The NO Protestantised? Not a bit of it, if the witness of my Protestant friend is to be believed, she whose forebears allegedly corrupted it**.

Perhaps in her opinion. The point remains however that Fr. Bugnini, one of the key architects of the NO, **did **say that. So maybe it didn’t succeed, if we were to judge by your friend, but that doesn’t change the motive / intents.

 

[LilyM]

Perhaps in her opinion. The point remains however that Fr. Bugnini, one of the key architects of the NO, **did **say that. So maybe it didn’t succeed, if we were to judge by your friend, but that doesn’t change the motive / intents.

And of course everything (or anything) he said he wanted to be achieved was achieved. And of course he wasn’t just indulging in a bit of the art of spin to smooth over interfaith relations either, no-one in the Church has ever done that before after all.

And of course, most importantly, the Holy Spirit is totally impotent and totally incapable of guarding the form of the Mass - the source and summit of our faith - from anti-Catholic corruption. Think about what you’re implying here. If the Mass itself can be corrupted at its root then nothing, literally nothing, is safe. Not councils, encyclicals, Papal elections, nothing.

Your comments sound like those of someone who’s never ever had to try to do anything by committee, and never had to work in the face of a great deal of debate and criticism.

 

[Ockham]

So Lily…Lector, EMHC, or both?

 

[aicirt]

Traditional spirituality as experienced in the TLM is only one thing the Vatican said was fine. The Vatican has also approved the Charismatic Catholic Renewal and the Neocatecumical Way. Yet I have no desire or even a need to experience those just because they are approved. Do you likewise think every Traditional Catholic has the need to experience those in order to understand them?

Again…40 years ago we were told it could only be the NO. This was wrong. Vatican never said that. So if the TLM can be said and should have been said these 40 years, then it is time for it to be experienced by the laity.

 

[pnewton]

Again…40 years ago we were told it could only be the NO. This was wrong. Vatican never said that. So if the TLM can be said and should have been said these 40 years, then it is time for it to be experienced by the laity.

For those that want to, I agree.

 

[CradleCath]

I cannot let this statement go by unchallenged.

I’m glad that you couldn’t let it go because if you had…I’d have had to say more here than I want to.

First of all the TLM predates the 1950s by quite a few years. Second. the current state of Mass attendence in the US is abysmal at best. The reason for any increase is caused by immigration (legal and illegal). Nevertheless, the state of the Catholic Church in America is the result of the liberalism of the past century. THAT is the problem.
But to compare the Divine Liturgy, the Sacrifice of the Mass to “gas-guzzling tanks from the '50s” is a very reckless remark on your part. The EF and the OF are the Mass and deserves respect no matter which you prefer.

 

[LilyM]

So Lily…Lector, EMHC, or both?

:ehh: I’m neither. I was, years ago, and deliberately chose to stop. So sorry to disappoint.

At the risk of disappointing you even further, I wholheartedly agree with you that EMHCs are way overused, and have said as much to people who are EMHCs.

 

[JustaServant]

I’m glad that you couldn’t let it go because if you had…I’d have had to say more here than I want to.

 

[rein_me_in_Lord]

“An afterthought. I attended the TLM. until I was 24. Then for the last 40 yrs., I attended the Novus Ordo. I feel that I’ve seen enough to make a wise choice. I don’t think that anyone who hasn’t prayed the Mass of the Ages, who has never attended one should voice an opinion about it, especially here on the “Traditional Catholic” forum. I would not comment on the Novus Ordo had I not attended it.”

Ditto, CradleCath. I wish that the NO folks would devote as much time and open-mindedness to investigating the TLM as we did the NO.

 

[vz71]

Do you likewise think every Traditional Catholic has the need to experience those in order to understand them?

I think it would be wise to experience the Mass in every approved form.

And I would like to be standing a few yards away from Ockham with a camera for that Charismatic Mass.

Soemthing tells me it would be…interesting.