IMO Catholics loyal to Magisterium ought not use terms "NO" or "TLM"

[Brennan_Doherty]

One suggestion I have heard (and that I agree with) is that the Tridentine Mass should more accurately be called the Mass of St. Gregory the Great since, to quote Fr. Adrian Fortescue,

“From roughly the time of St. Gregory [d. 604] we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.”

-----Fr. Adrian Fortescue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy [1912], p. 173

“Our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our inquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.”

-----Fr. Adrian Fortescue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy [1912], p. 213

romancatholicism.org/davies-short.htm

 

[Mary_Henley]

I appreciate this post. One of the main things that brought me here is a Sedavacantist telling me that I am a modernist (read = heretic) because I participate in the Novus Ordo, which is Luther’s Mass. I had never heard of this bef%between%ore, and am still not sure what it means. She also told me that I should be subject to the Magesterium of the Church, after she told me that she does not recognize any popes or teachings since Vat. II. I am still confused about all this, but reading posts like yours is helping to make sense out of it.
cuf.org/FileDownloads/dogmatizingdiscipline.pdf
This may help

 

[Godefridus]

One suggestion I have heard (and that I agree with) is that the Tridentine Mass should more accurately be called the Mass of St. Gregory the Great since, to quote Fr. Adrian Fortescue,

“From roughly the time of St. Gregory [d. 604] we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.”

I believe this overlooks a great deal of development within the Mass between the 7th and 17th’s centuries.

I’m looking at my old class notes here, so charitable corrections are appreciated.

In the 8th century, Pope Hadrian made modifications to the Gregorian sacramentary, and sent this version to Charlemagne. Benedict of Aniane makes further alterations of the Hadrian sacramentary, incorporating elements of the then-popular Gallic liturgy, which itself was a mixture of local elements and Eastern traditions.

The silent prayers of the priest, the apologiae, weren’t part of the Mass until the 10th and 11th centuries, and (AFAIK) were introduced by Celtic monks (who we also have to thank for the practice of private Confession).

If you’re going to call the Tridentine Rite the Gregorian Rite, then we might as well call the Vatican Rite the Hippolytan Rite. Both councils, in their respective times, sought to simplify the current practice of the Mass by removing certain accretions and restoring certain ancient practices, according to what was believed to be useful at the time. If the Tridentine ideal was the 7th century (through the Tridentine rite includes not a few elements that were added later, not that this is a bad thing), the Vatican reformers’ ideal was the 4th century.

I’m not defending anything that the Vatican did with the 1969 Missal. I’m just saying, it’s as silly to call the Tridentine Rite the Gregorian Rite, as it would be to call the current rite the Hippolytan rite.

 

[AJV]

One suggestion I have heard (and that I agree with) is that the Tridentine Mass should more accurately be called the Mass of St. Gregory the Great since, to quote Fr. Adrian Fortescue,

“From roughly the time of St. Gregory [d. 604] we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.”

-----Fr. Adrian Fortescue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy [1912], p. 173

“Our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our inquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.”

-----Fr. Adrian Fortescue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy [1912], p. 213

romancatholicism.org/davies-short.htm

The parts Fr. Fortescue are referring to is, first and foremost the Canon-which is the heart of the Mass. Then the overall structure to which St. Gregory had made changes. Not individual parts and certainly not many of the prayers of the ‘Tridentine’ Mass-he would be too good a scholar to do that.

If one goes through the Tridetine Mass and compares it to the Mass of St. Gregory the Great

-No prayers at the foot of the altar-nothing upto the Introit. The prayer “Aufer a nobis” is ancient (from the Leonine Sacramentary) but there it appears in another capacity not in the Ordinary.
-Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Epistle, Gospel blessing (the action not the wording) and Gospel as in the time of St. Gregory the Great. However the collects were restricted in number, and the Kyrie may have frequently been a litany on major days. Also, all the collects do not date form that time, but the Epistles and Gospels of the Sundays however, do.
-No Creed
No Offertory prayers in whatever capacity.
-The Secret (or the Oratio Super Oblata) followed
The Canon of the Mass as it is, with the preceding prefaces (except that the prefaces were different), and the Memento for the Dead in the Canon being omitted on the greater days.
The Our Father and the embolism to which St. Gregory added the name of St. Andrew. It was said aloud, however.
Pax Domini, the triple signing (with however the Sancta a particle form the earlier Mass) as at the time of St. Gregory. However, at the time of St. Gregory, the kiss of peace comes here-in the TLM it is placed later.
The Agnus Dei was introduced a little later than St. Gregory but consider as from his time. The fraction took place during the singing.
None of the 3 prayers after the Agnus Dei. None of the communion prayers. Instead the Pope communicated, dropped another Particle into the chalice with the prayer “Haec commixtio…” (placed earlier in the TLM) and then said “Pax tecum” before communicating.
No ablution prayers.
The salutation “Dominus vobiscum” and the poastcommunion is the same
Ite Missa est.
No blessing by priest, hwoever the higher clergy blessed the people as they went out.
No Placeat or Last Gospel.

I suppose that one could say the Mass of St. Gregory since it has organically evolved from that time.
Looking at this list, technically the Missal of 1970 doesn’t remove any of the elements present at the time of St. Gregory (speaking only structure wise) though it does make the Canon optional (and cuts part of the embolism). However some of the ancient variable parts have disappeared (though equally new ones are there that are composed form other ancient ones)

 

[maggieodae]

This is just a portion of the glowingly positive preface by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to the book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr. Klaus Gamber. This book is a blistering attack of the Novus Ordo and Pope Paul VI for promulgating it. He conclusively shows, through history, that the NO is a falsification of true liturgy and liturgical development.

I think we who oppose the NO as a fabrication are in good company.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Thanks to Godefridus and AJV for their replies. I recognize of course that there has been organic development in the Tridentine Mass since the time of St. Gregory the Great.

However, from what I understand, Trent merely codified the existing liturgy while allowing liturgies older than 200 years to continue.

And since I think the quote from Fr. Adrian Fortescue is essentially accurate and also that the changes to the Mass since that time up until Trent were primarily additions along the lines of organic development, it is more accurate to call the Tridentine Mass the Mass of St. Gregory the Great since that is the foundation (to use a word I heard AJV use) from which the Tridentine rite developed. But I have no real objection to the use of the term Tridentine Mass.

As far as calling the Novus Ordo the Hyppolytan Mass as Godefridus mentioned, I wanted to quote from this artice from Fr. Fessio of Ignatius Press fame:

"Now, where did Canon Two come from? From what’s called the Canon of Hyppolytus, composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled to the Church and died a martyr. Around the year 215, he wrote an outline of how Mass was celebrated in Rome. It was probably never used as a liturgical text because in the early days of the Church there was no final, written formalization of the liturgy, so this was an outline to be used by the celebrant.

Thus, the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon. If it was, it ceased being used at least 1600 years ago. Yet from the Council, which says changes ought to come through organic growth and there should be no changes unless necessary, we come to liturgists saying, “Oh, let’s pull this thing out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth.” That’s not organic growth; that’s archeologism, specifically criticized by Pius XII in Mediator Dei."

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp

Hence Fr. Fessio seems to be arguing that the Canon of Hyppolytus is of dubious origin and even if it wasn’t, to pull it from 1600 years ago and put it in the Novus Ordo is archeologism and not organic development (unlike the Canon of St. Gregory the Great which came down to the Tridentine rite essentially unchanged).

Thus it does seem the term the Mass of St. Gregory the Great would be a more viable option for the Tridentine Mass than the Hyppolytan Mass would be for the Novus Ordo.

 

[Godefridus]

Yes, yes, I know all about the archaist/archaeologist critique. Though I don’t think Fr. Fessio has any firm ground to say that this prayer was never used. It’s a pretty big “perhaps” he inserts into that sentence.

The critique of archaism would also have a lot more force if the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer was intended to *replace *the Roman Canon. But this hardly true. In fact the Church included instructions of when the prayers were to be used:

1. Eucharistic Prayer I, i.e. the Roman Canon, may always be used; its use is particularly suited to days assigned a proper Communicantes or a proper Hanc igitur; to feasts of the apostles and saints mentioned in this Prayer; also to Sundays, unless pastoral reasons call for a different eucharistic prayer.

1. Because of its distinctive features, Eucharistic Prayer II is better suited to weekdays or to special occasions.

1. Eucharistic Prayer III may be used with any of the prefaces; like the Roman Canon, it is to have precedence on Sundays and holydays.

  		4) Eucharistic Prayer IV has an unchangeable preface.... It may be used whenever a Mass does not have a proper preface; its use is particularly suited to a congregation of people with a more developed knowledge of Scripture.

The fact that Prayer II has become overused is a symptom of all our priestly sell-outs to pragmatism. (Of course, the liturgical reformers should have had the basic common sense to realize that when you unleash a shorter prayer on an increasingly lazy people, this is going to happen).

Anyway, even in my liberal diocese, most of the younger priests I know use the Roman Canon whenever they can, and avoid Prayer II whenever they can.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Yes, yes, I know all about the archaist/archaeologist critique. Though I don’t think Fr. Fessio has any firm ground to say that this prayer was never used. It’s a pretty big “perhaps” he inserts into that sentence.

The critique of archaism would also have a lot more force if the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer was intended to *replace *the Roman Canon. But this hardly true. In fact the Church included instructions of when the prayers were to be used:

The fact that Prayer II has become overused is a symptom of all our priestly sell-outs to pragmatism. (Of course, the liturgical reformers should have had the basic common sense to realize that when you unleash a shorter prayer on an increasingly lazy people, this is going to happen).

Anyway, even in my liberal diocese, most of the younger priests I know use the Roman Canon whenever they can, and avoid Prayer II whenever they can.

Godefridus, thanks for your response. I would say that the critique of arceologism still has force even if Eucharistic Prayer II was only intended to be used on weekdays or special occasions, as it is still archeologtism to pull a (dubious) canon from 1600 years ago and just insert into the liturgy. Even if the canon was only intended for certain occasions.

I agree with your assessment that when a prayer is shorter and easier it’s more likely to be used than a canon such as the much longer Canon I. I still hear Canon II almost exclusively at different Masses.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Yes, yes, I know all about the archaist/archaeologist critique. Though I don’t think Fr. Fessio has any firm ground to say that this prayer was never used. It’s a pretty big “perhaps” he inserts into that sentence.

The critique of archaism would also have a lot more force if the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer was intended to *replace *the Roman Canon. But this hardly true. In fact the Church included instructions of when the prayers were to be used:

The perhaps is actually quite sound, as many if not most liturgical historians now think the “Canon of Hippolytus” is neither Roman, nor Hippolytan (of the 3rd century anti-pope), nor as ancient as was once believed. Luckily for us, though, the committee that invented the Novus Ordo decided to compose a new canon based on it - the archaeologism, in my opinion, comes not in trying to resurrect a long dead and perhaps never used (at least in Rome) canon but in trying to return to a time of multiple canons, a condition which has not obtained in the Roman church since time immemorial.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A very FALSE statement

Below are other Valid rites of the western church (along with the NO and TLM)

• Anglican Use - Since the 1980s the Holy See has granted some former Anglican and Episcopal clergy converting with their parishes the faculty of celebrating the sacramental rites according to Anglican forms, doctrinally corrected.
  …

The Anglican Use is not a Rite, just as the Sarum Use was not a Rite - Uses are forms of the Liturgy within Rites: the Rite in these two instances being that of Rome.​

Uses =/= Rites

 

[Claudius]

I am pretty sure that the Eastern Churches (Catholic of course) have more then one rite of the Mass. They have the way they do it most of the time and the way they do it on speacial occasions that is even older. There is one Saint that had made a rite of the Mass but later that rite was greatly modified to the form they use today but they still do the much longer older form on that person’s memorial day. I also know that in the Latin Rite we have had differing ways to do the Mass to meet the needs of the church. I hae never been to the Older form of the Mass but I really would like to start, at the same time, I have no problem with the newer, it is what made me a Catholic.

 

[AlexV]

I love how the original poster…while trotting about the usual “loyalty” and “obedience” card…snipes over a title the Church officially stamped on a book (“Novus Ordo Missae”), but approves a title She only officially used ONCE in her entire liturgical history, to describe an unpublished 1967 liturgy that ended up rejected in se (“Missa Normativa”).

 

[skatepixie]

I don’t see a problem with calling the newer form of the mass (and even if it is the norm now, it is still much newer, this is a fact, and so there is no harm in pointing that out, IMO) the Novus Ordo. It is the newer mass, after all. I think political correctness has taken over a bit too much so that people find the truth offensive…or they look at the way some people use the term (ie when criticizing the NO) and think that it is a term of criticisim only.

I think the term Traditional Latin Mass makes sense too. Latin Mass doesn;t work, because people then make the assumption that people would be happy with a Latin Novus Ordo. Therefore, of the two masses that can be offered in Latin…this is the older, traditional one.

I think the terms Ordinary and Extraordinary form could gain popularity, but I also realize that people tend to use the same terms that they always have just for ease of conversation…(ie everyone knows what people are talking about).

 

[tee_eff_em]

I love how the original poster…while trotting about the usual “loyalty” and “obedience” card…snipes over

a title the Church officially stamped on a book ("Novus Ordo Missae")

, but approves a title She only officially used ONCE in her entire liturgical history, to describe an unpublished 1967 liturgy that ended up rejected in se (“Missa Normativa”).

Which book is that?

tee

 

[GerardP]

Micheal Davies “Liturgical Shipwreck” is online for anyone interested in reading his analysis of the “benefits” of the Novus Ordo.

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/shipwreck.htm

"It is incontestable that the Consilium, the Commission which composed the New Mass, subtracted many of the prayers and ceremonies in previous use and remodeled the existing rite in a most drastic manner, thus breaking away utterly from all historic liturgical evolution. Please note that I am not claiming that the New Mass is unorthodox or that Pope Paul VI did not have the strict legal right to approve some changes in the Mass. All that I am claiming is that, in doing what he did, he broke away utterly from all historic liturgical evolution. Incredible as it may seem, there are those who, in their eagerness to defend the New Mass, put reason aside and actually claim that no drastic remodeling of the Tridentine Mass took place! A typical instance of this failure to accept reality occurred in an article by Father Peter Stravinskas in the February, 1992 issue of Catholic News and World Report. Father Stravinskas claimed that, “Having studied the old rite of the Mass and the present rite with great care, I fail to see any significant difference between the two.” This reminds me of a comment made by the Duke of Wellington to a gentleman who approached him and said: “Mr. Smith, I believe.” “If you believe that,” said the Iron Duke, “you’ll believe anything!”–Michael Davies

 

[GerardP]

More from Michael Davies:

"It is not difficult to find examples of the many abuses that have been institutionalized.* Communion in the hand is not so much as mentioned in any document of the Council. It began soon after the Council as an aping of Protestant practice in Holland. Communion had been given in the hand in the early Church, but as the German liturgist Father Joseph Jungmann has explained, as the centuries passed, reverence for the Blessed Sacrament deepened, and the tradition developed that only what was consecrated could touch the Host, and this awesome privilege was confined to the consecrated hands of a priest,** which had been anointed for this purpose at his Ordination. Pope John Paul II has observed correctly that to touch the Host is a privilege of the ordained, but he did not, alas, consider it feasible to take the logical step and forbid the practice of Communion in the hand. This practice had been resurrected during the Protestant Reformation as an external manifestation of their belief that the bread received in Communion is ordinary bread and that the man who distributes it is an ordinary man. In our time, this practice in the Catholic Church soon spread from Holland to neighboring countries, and Pope Paul VI polled the bishops of the world as to whether the practice was acceptable. The overwhelming majority replied that it was not, and the Instruction Memoriale Domini, published in 1969, gave a superb exposition of the reasons for the traditional practice and the threat to reverence posed by the abuse of Communion in the hand. Pope Paul made a direct appeal to the bishops of the world:
“The Supreme Pontiff judged that the long’ received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic, episcopate, in the form which the present rite :,; of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church.” *