Novus Ordo as man centered rite

[Aramis]

Forgive me. I have a couple of questions and I hope that you will bear with my ignorance. First, is it “our” mass or is it God’s? What I mean is, does it belong to us to an extent that we can change it? I suppose that you would have a point by saying no and then pointing out that the Church is the one that changed it, but isn’t that within the authority of Vicar of Christ, of the Bride of Christ, of the Pillar of Truth? I personally prefer the TLM but I won’t go so far as to reject the N.O. or the Vatican II. I take great comfort in knowing that Christ’s promise of protection for his Church remains in effect even today.

My second question has to do with the fact that you are claiming that you are both a Latin Rite and Byzantine rite Catholic. Again, I am not suggesting that you are not. I just have not heard of being multiple-rites before. Is that possible?

The Roman mass has had changes every few dozen years, some large, most tiny. Of the various liturgies surviving, the Roman is the least like it was in 500.

Some accretions outside the mass proper (as in the leonine prayers). Some were more substantial (like the order the prayers in of the Liturgy of the Word, the prothesis being moved into the corpus of the mass, etc.).

The OF is a notable change, but the Liturgies, while always received tradition, always have been mutable by the whim of the patriarchs, and each of the original patriarchates developed different liturgies. Some patriarchates have literally dozens of variations; the Roman Patriarchate is no exception. As of 1964, there were quite a few missals in use for the Roman Patriarchate, with one exception, all in latin: Roman Mass, Dominican Mass, Carmelite Mass, Carthusian Mass, Ambrosian Mass (Archdiocese of Florence), Bragan Mass (Archdiocese of Braga), Mozarabic Mass (Archdiocese of Toledo), Dominican Mass (Roman Mass in Church Slavonic). Plus several more orders used the Roman Mass, but with different propers. And the Mozarabic does not appear to be a derivative of the Roman as much as of the abrogated Gallican Missal.

So quit complaining about the OF… it’s not the most different missal in use.

 

[Timothysis]

I am still wondering so many of those those who take special joy in the EF are so intent on denigrating the OF? Why are so many of them trying to take this option away from us?

An interesting point. I have never read a statement here by anyone who prefers the OF saying that they wished the EF would be done away with, but I have read many times EF devotees calling for the end of the OF. And not only do they call for the end of the OF, they denigrate Pope Paul’s Missal with distortions and downright lies. There have been several here who have said that the Pauline Missal “protestantizes” the Mass, but when I ask for an example from the missal of protestant thought, influence or theology, I get nothing in return.

I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one noticing this trend.

 

[Ockham]

I think for anyone to refer to the Ordinary Form of the Mass as the “Novus Ordo” or “NO” in this day and age says a great deal negative about said person. When I meet someone in real life who uses either term I immediately stop listening to them because either they are ignorant about what the Church calls the Ordinary Form of the Mass or they are bigoted.

Then you are making judgement prior to thought - prejudice.

 

[Ockham]

An interesting point. I have never read a statement here by anyone who prefers the OF saying that they wished the EF would be done away with, but I have read many times EF devotees calling for the end of the OF. And not only do they call for the end of the OF, they denigrate Pope Paul’s Missal with distortions and downright lies. There have been several here who have said that the Pauline Missal “protestantizes” the Mass, but when I ask for an example from the missal of protestant thought, influence or theology, I get nothing in return.

I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one noticing this trend.

Page one, post fifteen.

The EF was done away with for forty years.

 

[IVDAE]

Changing the words would be illicit, but not invalidate the the Sacrament, unless a priest omitted the “This is My Body, this is My Blood” part.

A valid Eucharist still provides the Holy Sacrament. All the grace is available in Heaven and on Earth. An individual may sit through Mass centered on himself, but that is a personal failing, not a failing of the Mass.

What if the priest says in the consecration " When the supper was ended, He took the cup, he give thanks and praise and give to his FRIENDS AND BRETHREN and says this is My Body…this is My Blood the blood of new and everlasting covenant it will be share for you and for ALL… DO THIS SO YOU CAN REMEMBER ME ALWAYS".

Still the Sacrament is valid but the grace is not there. In not saying omitting the words but changing the words.

 

[IVDAE]

What if someday, our Holy Father invoked a council and bring back the TLM and abolished the N.O. I imagined the lay people ( female lectors, EMHC, other lay people) were getting angry and say "cant be!! now I will not seen by faithfuls in the altar and perfoms as the clerics do!!!!". And thats a man centered.

 

[IVDAE]

To say that the Ordinary Form is “man centered” is no more than a cultural reaction and opinion of people devoted to the Extraordinary Form.

And to call the EF “the Mass of all time/ages” is at best just an expression of how people feel about it. It certainly is untrue in itself.

If the O.F. is not a man centered, why this Mass is allowing to receive communion by hand?? if you respect God and you touch His Sacred Body??? remember we are sinners and unworthy people, so that`s why we pray the Domine non sum dignus before the communion. Also the TLM was a right one that practices how to receive communoin.

 

[Cluny]

If the O.F. is not a man centered, why this Mass is allowing to receive communion by hand?? if you respect God and you touch His Sacred Body??? remember we are sinners and unworthy people, so that`s why we pray the Domine non sum dignus before the communion. Also the TLM was a right one that practices how to receive communoin.

1. As I have frequently said, there are ancient, traditional Liturgies still celebrated in the Catholic Church that have always called for Communion in the hand.
2. Why is your tongue more worthy to touch the Body of Christ than your fingers? I’ve asked this question repeatedly, and nobody has answered it.
3. Who’s the “We” saying “Domine, non sum dignus?” It’s not in all approved Liturgies of the Church.
4. Nobody ever said that the EF was wrong in itself.
   But it’s NOT the liturgical or spiritual standard for the entire Church.

Or do you think it is?

I have already said elsewhere that the Ordinary Form is NOT a “man-centered” rite. The Church does not say so, and does not promulgate such.

What if the priest says in the consecration " When the supper was ended, He took the cup, he give thanks and praise and give to his FRIENDS AND BRETHREN and says this is My Body…this is My Blood the blood of new and everlasting covenant it will be share for you and for ALL… DO THIS SO YOU CAN REMEMBER ME ALWAYS".

Still the Sacrament is valid but the grace is not there. In not saying omitting the words but changing the words.

Wrong.

You can’t have more Body and Blood of Christ than the Body and Blood of Christ.

The Oblata do not “partially consecrate”…

It’s impossible to have a “valid but graceless” Sacrament, as you are saying here.

If a Sacrament is validly celebrated, the grace is there.

Period.

What if someday, our Holy Father invoked a council and bring back the TLM and abolished the N.O. I imagined the lay people ( female lectors, EMHC, other lay people) were getting angry and say "cant be!! now I will not seen by faithfuls in the altar and perfoms as the clerics do!!!!". And thats a man centered.

The attitude of some people in this very hypothetical case does not prove that the Extraordinary Form (its proper name) is “man centered.”

All that you’re saying simply boils down to, “I don’t like the Pauline Mass.”

…As of 1964, there were quite a few missals in use for the Roman Patriarchate, with one exception, all in latin: Roman Mass, … Dominican Mass (Roman Mass in Church Slavonic).

The Domincan Mass is derived from the Use of Lyon (I think). This is NOT the same as the Glagolithic Mass, which is the Roman Mass celebrated in Church Slavonic which was used BEFORE Vatican II.

 

[pnewton]

What if the priest says in the consecration " When the supper was ended, He took the cup, he give thanks and praise and give to his FRIENDS AND BRETHREN and says this is My Body…this is My Blood the blood of new and everlasting covenant it will be share for you and for ALL… DO THIS SO YOU CAN REMEMBER ME ALWAYS".

Still the Sacrament is valid but the grace is not there. In not saying omitting the words but changing the words.

I would tell the priest his grammar is attrocious.

I do not think you understand what exactly a Sacrament is. Any valid Sacrament conveys grace.

 

[pnewton]

If the O.F. is not a man centered, why this Mass is allowing to receive communion by hand?? if you respect God and you touch His Sacred Body???

Worse than just touch His sacred body, we actually even consume Him. Whether we receive on our human tongue or our* human *hand does not make a rite more “man centered.”

 

[Cluny]

<< Originally Posted by IVDAE View Post
What if the priest says in the consecration " When the supper was ended, He took the cup, he give thanks and praise and give to his FRIENDS AND BRETHREN and says this is My Body…this is My Blood the blood of new and everlasting covenant it will be share for you and for ALL… DO THIS SO YOU CAN REMEMBER ME ALWAYS".>>

I do not know about the form of the Roman Missal authorized for use in the Phllippines.

However, there are presently in the USA several other authorized Eucharistic Prayers which have slightly varying Words of Institution.

Could this be what you are referring to?

 

[CradleCath]

Is it ok for the priest to give his homily walking down the isle? or during homily talk to people and ask them question and the people answers? one of my priest like to make his homily as a conversation with the people. his homily is basically jokes and laughs.

i dont want to be in his Mass anymore.

Sad. I remember the priest at my previous parish bringing props to use when giving the homily. The best example that I can remember is a suitcase & a hat (thank God he didn’t put it on…just carried it) to “illustrate” the message from Mark 6:7" And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two"; He, too, liked to stroll up & down the aisle as he spoke.

 

[Ockham]

What if someday, our Holy Father invoked a council and bring back the TLM and abolished the N.O. I imagined the lay people ( female lectors, EMHC, other lay people) were getting angry and say "cant be!! now I will not seen by faithfuls in the altar and perfoms as the clerics do!!!!". And thats a man centered.

Exactly. The Novus Ordo as it is now is the perfect representation of the Baby Boomer/ME Generation. Less emphasis on Christ and more emphasis on themselves. God has tolerated rebellious generations before.

 

[truevaticanii]

Pax, we know what is the big difference between the modern and traditional rite. And still our Mass today the Novus Ordo is the way of diversities and abuses in the liturgy. Traditionalist like me believe that this mass is no longer a God-centered rite but a man centered rite. Why priest need to face the people in order to celebrate mass in novus ordo, giving homily outside the pulpit and changing the words of consecration???

SO, sad… the Second Vatican Council never even instructed for the priest to face the people… this was likely an abuse that some priests started practicing that evolved into a norm… the Novus Ordo altar was only pulled out to reverence the entire altar with incense… which is why you are not obligated to face the people during Mass… well, unless the Mass is broadcasted on TV because some bishop complained that EWTN had done this for every Mass on TV and he said that it would confuse people… so you now cannot broadcast this on TV–from what I hear.

but some priests will refuse to face the people, so perhaps their Masses are simply no longer broadcasted ever… one example would be Bishop Slattery from Tulsa, OK.

…and in one of Pope Benedict’s books, he says that if you cannot face ad orientem, then you should place a crucifix on the altar before you (preferably with 3 candles on each side

 

[truevaticanii]

Worse than just touch His sacred body, we actually even consume Him. Whether we receive on our human tongue or our* human *hand does not make a rite more “man centered.”

…His sacred Body, which is exposed to us so intimately… like when a husband and wife are intimately exposed to one another… it is that intimate, loving, etc. …words cannot describe what Christ does for us, and how He loves us.

 

[AJV]

The Roman mass has had changes every few dozen years, some large, most tiny. Of the various liturgies surviving, the Roman is the least like it was in 500.

Some accretions outside the mass proper (as in the leonine prayers). Some were more substantial (like the order the prayers in of the Liturgy of the Word, the prothesis being moved into the corpus of the mass, etc.).

Nitpick…actually the “prothesis” was moved out in the Byzantine liturgy. The Romans didn’t move it in - it was ‘in’ from the beginning.

 

[Cluny]

<<SO, sad… the Second Vatican Council never even instructed for the priest to face the people… this was likely an abuse that some priests started practicing that evolved into a norm…>>

There are photos on the web of the Tridentine Mass being celebrated versus populum in the late 40’s early '50s in various places.

And there have ALWAYS been rubrics, including diagrams of how to cense the Altar, in the Missale Romanum, for celebrating in the basilican posture (to use the proper name for this custom).

<<Some accretions outside the mass proper (as in the leonine prayers). Some were more substantial (like the order the prayers in of the Liturgy of the Word, the prothesis being moved into the corpus of the mass, etc.)
.
Nitpick…actually the “prothesis” was moved out in the Byzantine liturgy. The Romans didn’t move it in - it was ‘in’ from the beginning.>>

To be even more nitpicky, the actually placing of the bread and wine on the Altar IS the offertory, not the various prayers that have accompanied it in the authorized Liturgies, nor is the Byzantine Prothesis the offertory.

In the Extraordinary Form, the actual placing of the host on the paten when vesting the Chalice in the sacristy IS the Western prothesis.

Furthermore the OLDEST manuscripts of Prothesis for a Byzantine liturgy are found in the Graeco-Slavic Liturgy of St. Peter, which is (with few a few differences) the Byzantine liturgy with the Roman Canon substituted for that of St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil.

 

[Timothysis]

Page one, post fifteen.

The EF was done away with for forty years.

Fail.

Disciplines of the celebration of the liturgy may change, but the same distinct catholic theology and beliefs are still present in the missal itself. Someone posted here that there was a time when catholic churches did not have pews, only chairs for the aged and infirm, and that it was from the protestants that the introduction of pews came into being. Would you suggest that, since pews were introduced into catholic churches for the celebration of the liturgy from protestant influences, that even the Tridentine missal is “protestantized” for allowing such?

I ask again; can you point to anything in the Pauline Missal that is protestant?

 

[CradleCath]

An interesting point. I have never read a statement here by anyone who prefers the OF saying that they wished the EF would be done away with, but I have read many times EF devotees calling for the end of the OF. And not only do they call for the end of the OF, they denigrate Pope Paul’s Missal with distortions and downright lies. There have been several here who have said that the Pauline Missal “protestantizes” the Mass, but when I ask for an example from the missal of protestant thought, influence or theology, I get nothing in return.

I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one noticing this trend.

You know what?? I’ve been posting on this forum for almost 2 yrs. When I first came to CA., I truly believed that the forum named “Traditional Catholicism” would be a place to discuss Traditional Catholic’s backgrounds, their ages in the context of ‘who is attending the TLM’ &, what their children (or parents) think of this Liturgy, feast days, the rosary, etc.

Today, I attended the TLM. as usual, but took my brand, new Latin/English missal. I had some problems finding the correct Epistle, Introit, etc. so I opened the traditional forum to discuss that & what do I find on MOST of the threads…Novus Ordo Catholics saying things like the post above. “they” denigtrate, “several here lie & distort”.

I have wondered often why the moderators do not offer a forum for those of you who prefer the Novus Ordo. The question is: would you post there, or do you like to come to this forum to argue. I for one am SICK of it. So sick…that it’s not worth asking the question re following the Mass with my new Daily Missal. I know that I can figure it out & that from now on, I’ll be sure that the collects, secrets, Epistles & Gospels are marked before I leave for Mass.

Now, go forward with your “defenses” of the Novus Ordo Mass, even if I’ve not seen anyone attacking it. Remembering that I believe that it’s YOU (generic you) who feels that your Mass is “inferior”. If you don’t feel that way, why are you here “defending” it. I have NEVER said the the OF is inferior, just that it more represents the whole of Catholicism, just that I prefer it & why, just that I thank God that I have access to the TLM. AND that I’m hope that you feel the same way about the Novus Ordo.

 

[estesbob]

Now, go forward with your “defenses” of the Novus Ordo Mass,** even if I’ve not seen anyone attacking it.** Remembering that I believe that it’s YOU (generic you) who feels that your Mass is “inferior”. If you don’t feel that way, why are you here “defending” it. I have NEVER said the the OF is inferior, just that it more represents the whole of Catholicism, just that I prefer it & why, just that I thank God that I have access to the TLM. AND that I’m hope that you feel the same way about the Novus Ordo.

From this thread:

Exactly. The Novus Ordo as it is now is the perfect representation of the Baby Boomer/ME Generation. Less emphasis on Christ and more emphasis on themselves. God has tolerated rebellious generations before.

If the O.F. is not a man centered, why this Mass is allowing to receive communion by hand?? if you respect God and you touch His Sacred Body??? remember we are sinners and unworthy people, so that`s why we pray the Domine non sum dignus before the communion. Also the TLM was a right one that practices how to receive communoin.