Novus Ordo Priest Is Fed Up

[NeelyAnn]

I did backpeddle a little from my previous posts about this, but I would still say that to kneel simply because you know it cannot be considered illicit is not necessarily the same thing as calling it a full-blown right. After all, the bishops conferences DO have a say in how some things are done during Mass, and Msgr. Marini’s letter (see post #85) did acknowledge that standing is a “norm” for the USA. If you feel moved to kneel, those bishops cannot say you are disobedient. But it would be outside of the norm, objectively speaking.

From:

**Benedict XVI’s “Novel” Traditions **

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=414205

Finally, in regard to the way of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful, one needs to distinguish the aspect of receiving it kneeling from that of receiving it on the tongue. In the actual ordinary form of the Roman Rite – or the Mass of Paul VI --** the faithful have a right to receive Communion standing or kneeling. **If the Holy Father has decided to have communicants kneel, I think – obviously this is only my personal opinion – that he holds this to be the more appropriate posture to express the sense of adoration that we must always cultivate before the gift of the Eucharist. It is an aid that the Pope gives to those who receive Communion from him, which helps them to consider attentively who He is who is received in the most holy Eucharist.

On the other hand, in “Sacramentum Caritatis,” citing St. Augustine, the Holy Father recalled that in receiving the Eucharistic Bread we must adore it, because we would sin if we received it without adoring it. Before receiving Communion, the priest himself genuflects before the Host – why not help the faithful cultivate the sense of proper adoration through a similar gesture?

In regard to Communion in the hand, it must be remembered that this is possible in many places today – possible but not obligatory – but that it is, and remains, a concession, a dispensation from the ordinary norm that affirms that Communion is received on the tongue. This concession was made to individual bishops’ conferences that asked for it and it is not the Holy See that suggests it or promotes it. And, in any case, no bishop, as a member of a bishops’ conference that has asked for and obtained the indult, is obliged to accept it and apply it in his diocese: Every bishop can always decide to apply the universal norm – which is still in force – in his diocese. According to this norm, the faithful must receive Holy Communion on the tongue. If no bishop in the world is obliged to take advantage of the indult, how can the Pope be obliged? In fact, it is important that the Holy Father maintain the traditional rule, confirmed by Paul VI, who prohibited the faithful from receiving Communion in the hand (for further details, see Mauro Gagliardi, “La Liturgia: Fonte di Vita” [Verona: Fede & Cultura, 2009, p. 170-181]).

From:

**Papal liturgist endorses ‘reform of the reform’
Cites ‘the necessity of a new liturgical renewal’ **

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=414521

He said it was this same desire to renew a sense of adoration that prompted Pope Benedict **to make it the norm in papal liturgies for the pope to distribute Communion on the tongue to people kneeling. **

 

[donmaximuso27]

Oh, I don’t think that a love of liturgical tradition equates with disobedience. But supporting a movement that has defied Rome (SSPX) is a subtle form of disobedience, yes?

Those on this thread should be encouraged to attend reverent, traditional liturgies that are fully submissive to the pope. The priest who is the original subject of this thread is traditional, orthodox, and in full communion with Rome. That is why I have attended his parish occasionally in the past.

I agree with you entirely. I do not support the SSPX nor do I attend their parishes. I’m not sure where I implied that I did support this group. If I did so, then it was entirely unintentional.

 

[surritter]

OK – we’re in agreement. I was a little worried when you posted that “what is truly dangerous is the current liturgy…”
That is usually how SSPX devotees begin their diatribes against the current Mass.

 

[donmaximuso27]

OK – we’re in agreement. I was a little worried when you posted that “what is truly dangerous is the current liturgy…”
That is usually how SSPX devotees begin their diatribes against the current Mass.

Well, certain aspects of it can are made dangerous to the faithful, depending on how it is celebrated. While I do support many of their points on the liturgy, as do many Catholics, to commit schism is an entirely different movement, one in which I will never take part. I do pray, however, that in the future the SSPX is in full communion with Rome, for I do feel, like the FSSP, that they can do much good for the Church.

 

[whatischarity]

Part of your reply:

After studying basic liturgical study and theology, and the basic history of the Church, it takes little effort to notice the lack of reverence, awe, and inspiration in the common NO mass

I have experienced this tone before with disastrous results (you have no idea) and that is probably why I am sensitive to it. It implies that the casual observer can see that the Novus Ordo is detrimental to the soul. I would just repeat that the Novus Ordo is the ordinary form of worship promoted by the universal Roman Catholic Church which is protected by the Holy Spirit through the promise of Jesus Christ. Any claim that it is an inadequate form of worship is an attack on the teaching authority of the universal church. Scandalous abuses that individuals perpetrate during the Holy Sacrfice of the Mass should be roundly condemned but it crosses a clear line (IMHO) to attack the rite itself.

Just as an aside, I have found that some humans stress the letter of the law and some stress the spirit of the law. It is my opinion that going too far in either direction leads to difficulties. I will gladly accept that Vatican Council II swung the pendulum toward the spirit. I will also easily grant that abuses have occurred that have caused scandal and damage to the Church. Still, if an individual perceives that the ordinary form of worship of the Roman Catholic Church is hazardous to the souls of the Church, then I would say it is more likely that the individua’ls perception is distorted and the individual is therefore mistaken (perhaps through no fault of his own) than that Satan has successfully managed to have the universal church promulgate a form of worship that leads sheep away from Jesus Christ.

Help me here. Isn’t it crossing the line to post that the Novus Ordo is displeasing to God and leads people away from Him as Fr. Paul has done?

 

[cothrige]

It implies that the casual observer can see that the Novus Ordo is detrimental to the soul. I would just repeat that the Novus Ordo is the ordinary form of worship promoted by the universal Roman Catholic Church which is protected by the Holy Spirit through the promise of Jesus Christ. Any claim that it is an inadequate form of worship is an attack on the teaching authority of the universal church.

I have seen this comment a lot on this forum, and others, and I am always a little surprised by it. How should we see the original reform, which replaced the traditional form of the Mass, considering what you say here? Before the Novus Ordo was in place the Tridentine Mass was the “ordinary form of worship promoted by the universal Roman Catholic Church which is protected by the Holy Spirit through the promise of Jesus Christ” and yet it was clearly seen as “an inadequate form of worship” insofar as it was replaced by the Novus Ordo. How is criticism of the NO, or the changes in the life of the Church apparently coming from its use, any more an “attack on the teaching authority of the universal church” than the many criticisms of the Mass which led to the creation of the NO in the first place?

BTW, before anyone makes an assumption, I am not attached to the TLM. I have never participated in one. The NO is the only Mass I have ever known in my life within the Church, and so I am not trying to argue some traditionalist point. I simply don’t understand the knee-jerk defensiveness I see whenever people criticise certain portions of the new Mass.

 

[surritter]

Before the Novus Ordo was in place the Tridentine Mass was the “ordinary form of worship promoted by the universal Roman Catholic Church which is protected by the Holy Spirit through the promise of Jesus Christ” and yet it was clearly seen as “an inadequate form of worship” insofar as it was replaced by the Novus Ordo. How is criticism of the NO, or the changes in the life of the Church apparently coming from its use, any more an “attack on the teaching authority of the universal church” than the many criticisms of the Mass which led to the creation of the NO in the first place?

I don’t see the logic in this – any criticism of a current form of Mass is detrimental to the spirit of unity in our Church. Criticisms of fifty years ago of the TLM were not appropriate at the time. Criticism of the Mass of Paul VI are not appropriate in our time. (Criticism of liturgical abuses that deviate from the accepted norm are of course appropriate.)

The authorities who implemented the change to the newer Mass did not say that the TLM is “an inadequate form of worship.” Yet they were empowered to make the change by virtue of their succession to the Apostles.

Why can’t we all simply say that whatever Mass form that is current is exactly the one needed for our time in history? The Holy Spirit guides the Church. If you prefer the Tridentine Mass, then attend a parish that has it. But it is not the ordinary Mass at this time in our history.

 

[NeelyAnn]

I don’t see the logic in this – any criticism of a current form of Mass is detrimental to the spirit of unity in our Church. Criticisms of fifty years ago of the TLM were not appropriate at the time. Criticism of the Mass of Paul VI are not appropriate in our time. (Criticism of liturgical abuses that deviate from the accepted norm are of course appropriate.)

The authorities who implemented the change to the newer Mass did not say that the TLM is “an inadequate form of worship.” Yet they were empowered to make the change by virtue of their succession to the Apostles.

Why can’t we all simply say that whatever Mass form that is current is exactly the one needed for our time in history? The Holy Spirit guides the Church. If you prefer the Tridentine Mass, then attend a parish that has it. But it is not the ordinary Mass at this time in our history.

Pope Benedict XVI, when Cardinal Ratzinger, called the New Mass ‘a banal product of the moment’ in the well-known preface to the French translation of Gamber’s most famous book, *Die Reform der römischen Liturgie *(The Reform of the Roman Rite):

What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced – as if in a technical production – by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true visionary and with the fearlessness of a true witness, opposed **this falsification **and tirelessly taught us the living fullness of a true liturgy, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge of the sources. As a man who knew and who loved history, he showed us the multiple forms of the evolution and of the path of the liturgy; as a man who saw history from the inside, he saw in this development and in the fruit of this development the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, which is not the object of our action, but which may marvelously continue to blossom and to ripen, if we join its mystery intimately.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2007/07/motu-proprio-notes-remembering-klaus.html

 

[surritter]

Then if the Holy Father feels moved by the Spirit to make a change, he may. But it is not our place to rip the Mass as it currently is.

We should be submissive – I always find it ironic that traditionalists claim to be so Catholic until it comes to respecting lawful authority in disciplinary matters. As I’ve said numerous times, if there is a liturgical aberration that is an abuse of the recognized norm, then feel free to criticize. If you prefer the TLM, feel free to attend a lawful TLM. But don’t use these threads as a platform to justify the SSPX in its current state.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Also from Pope Benedict XVI, when Cardinal Ratzinger, in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104:

The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication.They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.
summorumpontificum.net/2009/08/archbishop-nichols-versus-cardinal.html

 

[surritter]

Also from Pope Benedict XVI, when Cardinal Ratzinger, in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104:

Neely, that’s great that that was (and probably still is) his opinion when he was a cardinal. Now that he is pope, he is free to enact changes to reflect that opinion, and I will support him 100%. But until that happens, you are called to recognize the validity of the Mass of Paul VI, yes?

 

[NeelyAnn]

Then if the Holy Father feels moved by the Spirit to make a change, he may. But it is not our place to rip the Mass as it currently is.

We should be submissive – I always find it ironic that traditionalists claim to be so Catholic until it comes to respecting lawful authority in disciplinary matters. As I’ve said numerous times, if there is a liturgical aberration that is an abuse of the recognized norm, then feel free to criticize. If you prefer the TLM, feel free to attend a lawful TLM. But don’t use these threads as a platform to justify the SSPX in its current state.

This has nothing to do with the SSPX. This has to do with your comments about not criticizing the New Mass. You seem to think that it would be wrong to do so, yet Pope Benedict did when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. There are numerous other quotes from him that go even further.

 

[surritter]

Well, I agree that criticisms are allowed here and there, as long as we all acknowledge the validity of the current Mass. I detected many posts here as veiled statements that the current Mass is not only less than perfect, but invalid.

 

[CradleCath]

**This has nothing to do with the SSPX. **This has to do with your comments about not criticizing the New Mass. You seem to think that it would be wrong to do so, yet Pope Benedict did when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. There are numerous other quotes from him that go even further.

Thank you, NeelyAnn. I’ve been reading all of these posts about the SSPX vs. the Catholic Mass & I don’t understand how the SSPX even got into this discussion. Do the modernist Catholics believe that every Catholic who prefers the TLM. is a member of the SSPX. What a crock!!!

 

[surritter]

Thank you, NeelyAnn. I’ve been reading all of these posts about the SSPX vs. the Catholic Mass & I don’t understand how the SSPX even got into this discussion. Do the modernist Catholics believe that every Catholic who prefers the TLM. is a member of the SSPX. What a crock!!!

Well, threads sometimes drift to wherever the conversation is headed. Post #93 and following seemed to drift into the area of the so-called danger of the NO Mass, and I felt some concern in that. I was guilty of bringing up the SSPX by name, merely as an example of when adherence to tradition confronts obedience to the pope, and in their case they opted for adherence to tradition. I am a supported of communion on the tongue and most other traditions. Sorry to get off track.

 

[pnewton]

Pope Benedict XVI, when Cardinal Ratzinger, called the New Mass ‘a banal product of the moment’ in the well-known preface to the French translation of Gamber’s most famous book, *Die Reform der römischen Liturgie *(The Reform of the Roman Rite):

These four words keep re-occurring. I always like to balance those with what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in** his** book.
That was a quote in the forward to someone else’s book. Everytime I see it, I like to add the following from the preface to his own book,* Spirit of the Liturgy*, for balance:

Quote:

We might say that … the liturgy was rather like a fresco [in the early 20th century]. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss

adoremus.org/0906BenedictXVI.html

 

[pnewton]

Also from Pope Benedict XVI, when Cardinal Ratzinger, in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104:

FYI - He was not Pope in 1990. I tried to chase down this source and it was lost. It is an article of an article of an article of something that I can not find. It may be true, but it is not substantiated. If you go to the source this website took the article from, some place called “The Tablet”. They do not list this quote.

I think this may be re-direction of the same quote with the source twisted.

 

[cothrige]

The authorities who implemented the change to the newer Mass did not say that the TLM is “an inadequate form of worship.”

I disagree. If the old Mass were seen as adequate then it would not have needed to be replaced by the new form. Replacing the Mass is the most absolute statement of inadequacy possible.

Yet they were empowered to make the change by virtue of their succession to the Apostles.

Perhaps, though it is certainly possible that one with authority can make a bad decision in how that authority is put into action. As a parent I have the authority to discipline my children, but that hardly means that everything I do is the best possible action. It also doesn’t mean that my children are disobedient or acting inappropriately if they have an opinion about my choice or whether I could have chosen a better course of action. They are only disobedient if they refuse to submit to what I decide or if they deny that I have the authority to do so. The bishops had the authority to enact changes, and I as a Catholic am within my rights to ask whether it was the best of all possible choices when they did so. Yes, I have to submit, and that means that I cannot, in good conscience, suggest that the NO Mass is invalid, but that is not the point. The question is not validity, but nobility, or clarity, or banality, and so on. What I have seen on this and other threads are questions of comparison between the two forms and their format and language, and not whether one is invalid. These discussions are about human choices of translation and form, open to change and adjustment, and as such are about relative merits and not denials of validity or authority.

And this is just what liturgists, bishops and priests did during the development and institution of the Novus Ordo itself. That process proves the relative value of what you and others criticise among traditionally minded Catholics today. If the good of the NO came from that very environment then it is hard to understand why it becomes a moral evil today just because it is the NO that is now on the receiving end of the criticism.

Why can’t we all simply say that whatever Mass form that is current is exactly the one needed for our time in history?

Was that the mind of the reformers who brought about the NO itself? Did they look at the Mass of their time, i.e. the Tridentine form, and simply uphold that it was “exactly the one needed” for that time in history? No. If they had then the TLM would still be the Mass today.

Consider this from another angle. Let’s consider the Bible we use in the liturgy. Today, in the US, it is the NAB. I can, as a Catholic, state that this is a terrible translation that should never have been accepted and yet I will have done nothing scandalous. Does my preference for the Challoner DR, and my opinion that the NAB is subpar mean that I am attacking the authority of the bishops to approve of a Bible? Does the fact that my preferred bible is old and that the NAB is the “current” bible of the Church mean that I should never question its place in the Church or its relative merits? Am I outside of my rights by suggesting that a different translation in the liturgy would better serve the people? Am I attacking the Bible because of this opinion, or because I shared it with others? Am I saying it is invalid? Am I in schism?

 

[surritter]

Perhaps, though it is certainly possible that one with authority can make a bad decision in how that authority is put into action. As a parent I have the authority to discipline my children, but that hardly means that everything I do is the best possible action. It also doesn’t mean that my children are disobedient or acting inappropriately if they have an opinion about my choice or whether I could have chosen a better course of action. They are only disobedient if they refuse to submit to what I decide or if they deny that I have the authority to do so.

First of all, as a parent you do not have Christ’s guarantee saying that the gates of Hell shall not prevail. The Church, on the other hand, does. But it is good that you note that children would be “disobedient if they refuse to submit to what I decide or if they deny that I have the authority to do so.” That is my main point! I guess I shouldn’t have said that criticism of the OF Mass is wrong, but if it is said with that defiance in mind, it would be divisive and wrong.

What I have seen on this and other threads are questions of comparison between the two forms and their format and language, and not whether one is invalid. These discussions are about human choices of translation and form, open to change and adjustment, and as such are about relative merits and not denials of validity or authority.

I concur.

(Regarding the “best Mass for the time in history”) Was that the mind of the reformers who brought about the NO itself? Did they look at the Mass of their time, i.e. the Tridentine form, and simply uphold that it was “exactly the one needed” for that time in history? No. If they had then the TLM would still be the Mass today.

I think you’re saying the same thing I did. They did not think that the TLM was the best Mass for that time, so made the change.

Consider this from another angle. Let’s consider the Bible we use in the liturgy. Today, in the US, it is the NAB. I can, as a Catholic, state that this is a terrible translation that should never have been accepted and yet I will have done nothing scandalous. Does my preference for the Challoner DR, and my opinion that the NAB is subpar mean that I am attacking the authority of the bishops to approve of a Bible? Does the fact that my preferred bible is old and that the NAB is the “current” bible of the Church mean that I should never question its place in the Church or its relative merits? Am I outside of my rights by suggesting that a different translation in the liturgy would better serve the people? Am I attacking the Bible because of this opinion, or because I shared it with others? Am I saying it is invalid? Am I in schism?

Relax-- no need to jump all over me. You are not in schism with this criticism (poet and I didn’t know it!). Again, my whole thrust was to take issue with those who might think that the current form of Mass is invalid. You do not believe that, so we are square.

 

[NeelyAnn]

FYI - He was not Pope in 1990. I tried to chase down this source and it was lost. It is an article of an article of an article of something that I can not find. It may be true, but it is not substantiated. If you go to the source this website took the article from, some place called “The Tablet”. They do not list this quote.

I think this may be re-direction of the same quote with the source twisted.

I specifically said ‘when’ Cardinal Ratzinger. The quote comes from the book noted. The website cites the book and the pages that the quote was taken from.

A new thread should probably be started to discuss this, but I’ll continue here for now.

We can do lots of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict quotes.

For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone nowadays who advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. **There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her present if things are that way? **I must say, quite openly, that I don’t understad why so many of my episcopal brethren have to a great extent submitted to this rule of intolerance, which for no apparent reason is opposed to making the necessary inner reconciliation within the Church. (Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 416, pub. 2002, Ignatius Press)

I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not He speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds - partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council. Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977 (SF, CA: Ignatius), p. 149.

A sizable party of catholic liturgists seems to have practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate; one can detect much the same position in the post conciliar discussions on the Priesthood.The great historian of the Council of Trent, Hubert Jedin, pointed this out in 1975, in the preface to the last volume of his history of the Council of Trent: “The attentive reader … in reading this will not be less dismayed than the author, when he realises that **many of the things - in fact almost everything – that disturbed the men of the past is being put forward anew today.” **It is only against this background of the effective denial of the authority of Trent, that the bitterness of the struggle against allowing the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal, after the liturgical reform, can be understood. The possibility of so celebrating constitutes the strongest, and thus (for them) the most intolerable contradiction of the opinion of those who believe that the faith in the Eucharist formulated by Trent has lost its value. (Theology of the Liturgy - Lecture delivered during the Journees liturgiques de Fontgombault, July 2001)