Novus Ordo Priest Is Fed Up

[donmaximuso27]

Cothrige, spot on response. People on this thread need to remember that we are not claiming the NO mass to be invalid. We are simply questioning, and it is well within our right to do so, the style and manner in which the NO mass is being celebrated. It is well within our rights to debate and question the musical settings, the translations, etc., used at the NO mass, especially when it is clearly contrary to 2,000 years of liturgical and musical tradition. We are questioning not the validity, but the lack of awe, reverence, and beauty of the common NO mass.

 

[NeelyAnn]

One thing should be clear: the liturgy must not be a terrain for experimenting with theological hypotheses. **Too rapidly, in these last decades, the ideas of experts have entered into liturgical practice, often also by-passing ecclesiastical authority, through the channel of commissions which have been able to diffuse at an international level their “consensus of the moment,” and practically turn it into laws for liturgical activity. ** (Theology of the Liturgy - Lecture delivered during the Journees liturgiques de Fontgombault, July 2001)

"While there are many motives that might have led a great number of people to seek a refuge in the traditional liturgy, the chief one is that they find the dignity of the sacred preserved there. After the Council there were many priests who deliberately raised ‘desacralization’ to the level of a program, on the plea that the New Testament abolished the cult of the Temple: the veil of the Temple which was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death on the cross is, according to certain people, the sign of the end of the sacred. The death of Jesus, outside the City walls, that is to say, in the public world, is now the true religion. Religion, if it has any being at all, must have it in the nonsacredness of daily life, in love that is lived. Inspired by such reasoning, they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things.

…

"This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy – the form in which the liturgy was handed down – suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the Faith – for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. – nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I myself, when I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the Council, had fired a teacher who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of speech, was not prepared, after the Council, to dismiss a professor who openly denied certain fundamental truths of the Faith. (Address to the Bishops of Chile, July 13th, 1988)

"**In our form of the liturgy there is a tendency that, in my opinion, is false, namely, the complete ‘inculturation’ of the liturgy into the contemporary world. **The liturgy is thus supposed to be shortened; and everything that is supposedly unintelligible should be removed from it; it should, basically, be transported down to an even ‘flatter’ language. But this is a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of the the essence of the liturgy and of the liturgical celebration. For in the liturgy one doesn’t grasp what’s going on in a simply rational way, as I understand a lecture, for example, but in a manifold way, with all the senses, and by being drawn into a celebration that isn’t invented by some commission but that, as it were, comes to me from the depths of the millennia and, ultimately, of eternity.

…]The priest in fact, is not a showmaster who invents something new and skillfully communicates it. On the contrary, he can entirely lack any talents of a showmaster, because he represents something completely different, and it doesn’t depend on him.

Of course, intelligibility is also an element of the liturgy, and for this reason the Word of God must be well read, interpreted, and explained. But there are other ways of understanding in addition to the intelligibility of the word. Above all, it is not something that new commissions think up again and again. When that happens, the liturgy becomes something we construct, whether the commissions meet in Rome, Trier or Paris. Instead of this, liturgy must really have great continuity, protected from what is arbitrary, in which I really meet the mellennia and through them eternity and am raised up into a communion of celebration that is something other than what commissions or liturgy committees devise. (Salt of the Earth)

 

[NeelyAnn]

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.

The reform of the liturgy in the spirit of the liturgical movement was not a priority for the majority of the fathers, and for many not even a consideration. Thus, for example, in his outline of themes after the beginning of the Council, Cardinal Montini – who as Paul VI would be the real pope of the Council – said quite clearly that he did not see the reform of the liturgy as a substantial task in the Council. The liturgy and its reform had, since the end of World War I, become a pressing question only in France and Germany, and indeed above all from the perspective of the purest possible restoration of the ancient Roman liturgy, to which belonged the active involvement of the people in the liturgical event. These two countries, which at that time enjoyed theological leadership in the Church (and we must of course add Belgium and the Netherlands) had during the preparation phase succeeded in putting through a schema on the Sacred Liturgy, which quite naturally found its place in the general theme of the church.

The fact that this text became the first subject of the Council’s discussions really had nothing to do with the majority of the Fathers having an intense interest in the liturgical question. Quite simply, no great disagreements were expected in this area, and the undertaking was viewed as a kind of practical exercise to learn and test the method of conciliar work. It would not have occurred to any of the Fathers to see in this text a “revolution” signifying the “end of the Middle Ages,” as some theologians felt they should interpret it subsequently. The work was seen as a continuation of the reforms introduced by Pius X and carried on carefully but resolutely by Pius XII. General expressions such as “the liturgical books should be revised as soon as possible” (no. 25) were understood in this sense: as the uninterrupted continuation of that development which had always been there and which, since Pope Pius X and Pius XII, had received a definite profile from the rediscovery of the classical Roman liturgical traditions, which was, of course, to overcome certain tendencies of Baroque liturgy and nineteenth-century devotional piety and to promote a new humble and sober centering of the authentic mystery of Christ’s presence in His Church.

In this context it is not surprising that the “model Mass” now proposed, which was supposed to (and in fact did) take the place of the traditional Ordo Missae, was in 1967 rejected by the majority of the Fathers who had been called together to a special synod on the matter. Some publications now tell us that some liturgist (or perhaps many?) who were working as advisers had had more far-reaching intentions from the outset. Their wishes would surely not have received the approval of the Fathers. (Milestones)

 

[pnewton]

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.

I’m not the one that started this round of the Cardinal’s quotes.

I would recommend anyone that truly wants to understand the mind of the Man in the Chair to read his writings, not his quotes. People tend to be more selective in what they want to quote, whereas books bring context to quotes.

 

[whatischarity]

Thanks for the balancing quote. It seems to be an easily misused technique in forums to produce a quote or two as though that finishes that. But I now see that the hierarchy has written negative comments on the Novus Ordo. I am sure they have also written positive ones. I would say that it is one thing for the cardinals and bishops of the church to discuss or write on the merits of the Novus Ordo. It is their area of expertise and they are the ones who can make corrective changes. What I have observed is when snippets of this discussion gets to the level of the parishioners that problems can develop. Reading a few quotes of Cardinal Ratzinger gets you thinking one way. Reading a couple later quotes get you thinking another. Unless one is schooled in canon law or whatever area of expertise deals with liturgical reform, one could just get oneself into trouble due to one’s own biases and lack of depth of knowledge. For this reason I think a priest posting on the internet that he is fed up with the Novus Ordo and that it is the cause of numerous evils because it is bad liturgy is itself irresponsible. (This is the theme of this thread.)

As an aside, think how the Jews felt when Jesus came with his new teachings that did away with proscription against certain foods, repealing the necessity of circumcision, openning up the church to the gentiles, replacement of the Levites with priests, stopping the sacrifice prescribed by the Mosaic law in the temple. The very nature of God was changed from being Monotheistic to demonstrating that He is actually One God with three distinct Persons.

Hey, maybe it is right on saying the Tridentine Latin Mass should have never had been discontinued. If the Church could move as fast as Coke did when it made the mistake of discontinuing original Coke then maybe things would now be better. The organization of the Church is working now on making corrections. Just always remembger that some can read what you write or quaote about the approved form of worship of the universal church and get the frightful conclusion that from a bad tree comes bad fruit.

So if you think you have legitimate issues with the Novus Ordo, take them up with someone who can do something about it. There is danger in making strongly worded terse statements on the internet.

 

[CradleCath]

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:

adoremus.org/0906BenedictXVI.html

Then you SHOULD add the preface from his own book instead of Helen Hull Hitchcock’s view of his writings. That’s what your link led us to.

Pope Benedict XVI and the Liturgical Reform

**by Helen Hull Hitchcock/**B]

From Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict:
Preface to the initial volume of my writings:

Vatican Council II began its work with a discussion of the draft document on the sacred liturgy, which was later solemnly approved on December 4, 1963, as the first result of the great Church assembly, with the rank of constitution. At first glance, it might seem to be a coincidence that the topic of the liturgy was put first in the work of the council, and that the constitution on the liturgy was its first result. Pope John had convened the assembly of bishops in a decision that everyone shared in joyfully, in order to reinforce the presence of Christianity in an age of profound change, but without presenting a definite program. An extensive series of projects had been put in place by the preparatory commission. But there was no compass to find the way amid this abundance of proposals. Among all of the projects, the text on the sacred liturgy seemed to be the least controversial. So it immediately seemed to be the right choice: like a sort of exercise, so to speak, with which the fathers could learn the methods of conciliar work.

This volume now collects all of my short and medium-length work in which over the years, on various occasions and from different perspectives, I have expressed positions on liturgical questions. After all of the contributions that came into being in this way, I was finally prompted to present a vision of the whole, which appeared in the jubilee year 2000 under the title "The Spirit of the Liturgy."catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1001970/Spirit-Liturgy/?category=349&aid=117&gclid=CN7whN7SnZ8CFaM45QodyUsoLw

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Cradle,

Are you saying that the quote pnewton always uses from Cardinal Ratzinger, in order to *balance *the other quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger, was not written by Cardinal Ratzinger at all, but rather by Hellen Hitchcock?

I give a few quotes I find interesting, especially when you read them together. And these quote do come from Ratzinger. The first quote is from Cardinal Ratzinger’s book Spirit of the Liturgy, and the second is from the Forward he wrote to Msgr. Claus Gamber’s well known book Reform of the Roman Liturgy.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. **In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith,/B] and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166)."

Notice in that quote he says the Pope’s authority is bound to Tradition, and that the liturgy is not something that is “manufactured”. With that in mind, let’s read the next quote.

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”.

Vedy interestink, vouldn’t you zay? In the first quote he says the Pope does not have the authority to “manufacture” a liturgy; and in the second he say the new mass was created “as in a manufacturing process”.

Now let’s look at a quote from the book Reform of the Roman Liturgy, by Msgr. Claus Gamber, but first we’ll look at more of what Ratzinger said in the Forward to that book:
Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

"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.

The following is the section of the book by this fearless witness to the truth that addresses whether or not Paul VI had the authority to create the Novus Ordo.

continue…**

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation
Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

**Does the Pope have the authority to change a liturgical rite founded on apostolic tradition and developed over many centuries? **… *n the past, the Church hierarchy did not exercise a strong influence on the development of liturgical forms. It simply sanctioned the rite that grew out of local custom, and even the Church practice of officially sanctioning a rite emerged relatively late, only after printed liturgical books became popular.

In the West, this practice began after the Council of Trent; and it is defined in Article 22 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy [Sacrosanctum Concilium]. Referring to Canon 1257 of the Codex Iuris Canonici [1917], it says, “The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, with the diocesan bishop (…Therefore, no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority).”

The Council did not elaborate on what the term “supervision of the sacred liturgy” (Sacra Liturgiae moderatio) means. If we consider past practices and customs, however, the term cannot mean the type of sweeping revisions of the Mass ritual and the alteration of liturgical texts that we are now experiencing. Rather, we must understand the real meaning in a larger context: Above all, the Council Fathers were intent on preventing every priest from “devising” the liturgical rite “on his own authority”—which, of course, is exactly what is happening today.

Nor can the liturgical reformers derive their authority from Article 25 of the Liturgy Constitution, which says, “The liturgical books are to be revised (recognoscantur) as soon as possible.” …

[T]he type of revision of the liturgy of the Mass envisioned by the Council was the Ordo Missae published in 1965. At the very beginning, the decree [of 1965] points out that the revision (nova recensio) of the Order of the Mass is being issued because of the mutationes made to the Council’s Instructions on the Proper Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy [Inter oecumenici].

As recently as May 28,1966, in an official letter written on behalf of the Pope and addressed to the Abbot of Beuron, who had sent to the Pope a copy of the new (post-Council) edition of the Schott-Missal, then Cardinal Secretary of State Cicognani stated, “The singular characteristic and primary importance of this new edition is that it reflects completely the intent of the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.” The letter made no mention of the fact that a comprehensive revision of this very Missal was already under way.

Only four years had passed since the publication of the new Missal when Pope Paul VI surprised the Catholic world with a new Ordo Missae, dated April 6, 1969 [and promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum”]. The revision made in 1965 did not touch the traditional liturgical rite. In accordance with the mandate of Article 50 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, it had been primarily concerned with removing some later additions to the Order of the Mass.

The publication of the Ordo Missae of 1969, however, created a new liturgical rite. In other words, the traditional liturgical rite had not simply been revised as the Council had intended. Rather, it had been completely abolished, and a couple of years later, the traditional liturgical rite was, in fact, forbidden.

All this leads to the question: Does such a radical reform follow the tradition of the Church? Given the evidence we have presented, one cannot invoke the Council’s decisions to support such an argument. As we have already shown, the assertion, which continues to be made, that the inclusion of some parts of the traditional Missal into the new one means a continuation of the Roman rite, is baseless…*

continue…

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

] The argument could be made that the pope’s authority to introduce a new liturgical rite, that is, to do so without a decision by a council, can be derived from the “full and highest power” (plena et suprema potestas) he has in the Church, as cited by the First Vatican Council, i.e., power over matters quae ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent (“that pertain to the discipline and rule of the Church spread out over all the world”).

However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition. For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of “discipline and rule of the Church.” To this we can add that there is not a single document, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional liturgical rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.

There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church—that is, as Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus). …

As we examine the issue of unlimited papal authority and how it relates to the authority to change the established liturgical rite, … this argument just may be the already established fact that, until Pope Paul VI, there has not been a single pope who introduced the type of fundamental changes in liturgical forms which we are now witnessing. …

Not only is the Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact.

Since there is no document that specifically assigns to the Apostolic See the authority to change, let alone to abolish the traditional liturgical rite; and since, furthermore, it can be shown that not a single predecessor of Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman liturgy,** the assertion that the Holy See has the authority to change the liturgical rite would appear to be debatable, to say the least**.

Klaus Gamber

The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
(Die Reform der römischen Liturgie: Vorgeschichte und Problematik)
(Regensburg, 1981

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

The following is the *Papal Coronation Oath *. It dates back to at least Pope St. Agatho who was elected in June of the year 678.

Papal Coronation Oath: "I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

**I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I. **

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

**Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it Ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith **and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."

Minor organic changes - “the fruit of developement” - are one thing; but sweeping changes such as replacing a Mass that has gradually and organically developed since the time of Sts. Peter and Paul, and which was definitively canonized after 1600 years of gradual developement, with another that was described by Cardinal Ratzinger as “a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”, is another thing entirely.

 

[Brendan]

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.

The Church has multiple levels of Norms. The foremost is a Universal Norm, it applies always and everywhere. The next is a Particular Norm, it applies strictly to a geography.

A Particular Norm does not override a Universal Norm, unless it has been specifically approved to do so by the appropriate organization within the Vatican.

In the case of Liturgical Norms, that would be the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Their response was that they did NOT approve the Particular Norm of standing in a way that overrode the Universal Norm that states that the recipient may choose their position,

That is why kneeling is neither illict or disobedient, because it is within full accord with the Church’s instructions on the matter.

 

[surritter]

The Church has multiple levels of Norms. The foremost is a Universal Norm, it applies always and everywhere. The next is a Particular Norm, it applies strictly to a geography.

A Particular Norm does not override a Universal Norm, unless it has been specifically approved to do so by the appropriate organization within the Vatican.

In the case of Liturgical Norms, that would be the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Their response was that they did NOT approve the Particular Norm of standing in a way that overrode the Universal Norm that states that the recipient may choose their position,

That is why kneeling is neither illict or disobedient, because it is within full accord with the Church’s instructions on the matter.

Gotcha – thanks.

 

[CradleCath]

Cradle,

Are you saying that the quote pnewton always

 

[pnewton]

That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. Helen Hitchcock is the editor for Adoremus Bulletin & what has frequently been posted by PNewton is her words…her take on Pope Benedict. Following is part of the article:

 

[pnewton]

Then you SHOULD add the preface from his own book instead

I did add it. That is what it is. It represents about 10% of the preface.
**

CradleCath:
My problem with these 4 or 5 sentence quotes often used by the N.O. Catholics… do not represent either Cardinal Ratzinger’s or Pope Benedict’s opinion of the second Vatican Council, nor his view of the Novus Ordo Mass as it is commonly said in this country today.
.** All I can say on this is ROTFL, again and even more so. I post two sentences from the preface ot the Cardinal’s own book, his own preface, and I am the one misrepresenting him. I only do this whenever someone post two words (balnal fabrication) from a preface of someone else’s book. Furthermore, if you check my earlier post, I plainly said, “I would recommend anyone that truly wants to understand the mind of the Man in the Chair to read his writings, not his quotes.”

The impression I have gotten from reading his books is that “banal fabrication” is not an accurate representation of the man’s opinion on liturgy. It is just my impression. I do not care to influence anyone on this subject. My only reason for adding what I do is because I believe this oft quoted two words of the Cardinals are not accurate reflection of the sum total of his beliefs. It was a preface for goodness sakes. Again, I say read a book if one wants an informed opinion. There is very balanced. If you are on either extreme of the liturgical spectrum, you will not like all you read.

 

[whatischarity]

Cothrige, spot on response. People on this thread need to remember that we are not claiming the NO mass to be invalid. We are simply questioning, and it is well within our right to do so, the style and manner in which the NO mass is being celebrated. It is well within our rights to debate and question the musical settings, the translations, etc., used at the NO mass, especially when it is clearly contrary to 2,000 years of liturgical and musical tradition. We are questioning not the validity, but the lack of awe, reverence, and beauty of the common NO mass.

It may be that the posters are not challenging the valididty of the NO, but it appears to me the efficacy is being challenged. Here is one sentence from Fr. Paul:

The law of this bad liturgical prayer spawned bad faith.

How can a Roman Catholic question the efficacy of the common universally approved worship of the Church which is the primary conduit of graces to believers? I get promoting the TLM. I get that it should not have been stopped. But is the line that can’t be crossed that the NO is invalid but anything short of that is fair game?

 

[whatischarity]

From a post yesterday, you wrote CradleCath:

Do the modernist Catholics believe that every Catholic who prefers the TLM.

and then above you post:

My problem with these 4 or 5 sentence quotes often used by the N.O. Catholics…

I am not sure who you are characterizing by these qualifiers. Is someone who attends the ordinary form of the Mass in their local parish a modernist Catholic and a N.O. Catholic. I can tell you are really into this, but doesn’t it seem you might be getting carried away?

The Novus Ordo is valid. Through it the priest effectively transforms bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and allows Catholics to participate in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist just as they have been doing all over the world day in and day out for more than 40 years. I get you like the TLM way more but both provide the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ to His flock. No one could say that there is any difference in the consecrtaed host! Still, how much wickedness can you attribute to the Novus Ordo when it serves as the primary conduit of grace from God to Man? Heaven forbid that someone would conclude that Satan is triumphing through the Novus Ordo!

 

[cothrige]

It may be that the posters are not challenging the valididty of the NO, but it appears to me the efficacy is being challenged. Here is one sentence from Fr. Paul:

The law of this bad liturgical prayer spawned bad faith.

Are you saying that you do not believe it is possible for there to exist liturgical prayer which is bad? I don’t know why that would cause you scandal. I am aware of no guarantee from the Holy Spirit that the Church will never choose bad prayers for her liturgy. As far as I can tell this goes far beyond anything our faith requires us to believe about the Church and her charisms of infallibility. We should always be aware of our own ability to fail, and those in positions of authority should never feel comfortable thinking that no matter what they do to the Mass it will always be perfect. The Mass needs to be defended and treated with care by all involved, including those who are given the job of writing prayers for it, if indeed the Church feels that such is wise.

 

[CradleCath]

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.

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.

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?

excellent post!!!

 

[whatischarity]

Let’s just stay focused on the efficacy of the Novus Ordo. I am saying that I do not believe it is possible that the Novus Ordo promulgates evil. The original post on this thread ends with:

The law of this bad liturgical prayer spawned bad faith. And the whole situation flowered from this: broken families, empty seminaries, vanishing religious houses, dearth of scholarship, moral confusion, small Mass attendance and countless scandals of the clergy. And our Pastors praise such results.

If the writer means that the Novus Ordo caused all these evils, then that is what I do not think is possible. I do not think the Novus Ordo is evil because it is and has been the universal central liturgical prayer of the Church. As such, it effects the changing of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Since it does that, it can’t be evil. You can argue that other forms of the Mass are better but I believe one crosses an important line by stating or implying that it leads to or causes evil.

BTW: Don’t you think the writers last line is scandalous? Why would he write that our Pastors praise such results? Why is “Pastors” capitalized? is there anyway to read that last sentence that does not imply that the Pastors are wicked? Man, that sets me off.