J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
There are no imperfections in the NO, save for subjective opinion. There are only abuses.
- Status
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
I’ve posted this before but it’s relevant here. If you look at these points one by one, you can see what Vatican II intended to be done with the liturgy.
**Passages From Sacrosanctum Concilium **
54…steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
115…Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training.
**Passages From Sacrosanctum Concilium **
- In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established…3. Therefore, no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
54…steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
115…Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training.
- The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
- In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.
- The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Regarding Latin, we should all try and understand one thing. It doesn’t matter that the council said retain Latin, a pope isn’t bound by a council. Paul VI permitted the bishops’ conferences to make that decision. The decisions were then submitted to the Holy See for confirmation. The all-vernacular Mass ISN’T an abuse or an imperfection.
The rest is an abuse, not the Mass iteself.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by the rest is an abuse. These are clear directives from a VII document on how the liturgy is to be said. The OP wants to know how the Novus Ordo can be said properly, and with reverence.
P
PatienceAndLove
Guest
Exactly!
I keep hearing about the Mass of Angels, the Mass of Saints, and then the Jubilate Deo.
I have heard that the Angels and the Saints are two very reverent Masses, and I know the Jubilate is in Chant so, yeah lol.
Do you think that choosing specific masses helps with the reverence of a Mass? (ie: the ones listed above, or other ones?)
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Insofar as music has devolved, it’s an abuse. It isn’t the Mass, however, as it was promulgated by the Pope.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Those are musical settings of parts of the Mass. We sang the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei from the Missa di Angelis at the NO Masses I sang at for Holy Thursday.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
I’ve never even heard of those types of Masses. I live in Canada and the Novus Ordo’s here are pretty boring fare. The only truly reverent Novus Ordo I have ever been to was a Latin chanted Mass, and that was in the US.
P
PatienceAndLove
Guest
I guess those might be American Catholic Masses.
And if it was a Latin chant NO, it might have been the Jubilate. Was the whole mass Latin and chanted, or just the gloria, kyrie, etc?
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
The choir was singing everything in Latin. It was very beautiful. There were eight priests in the sanctuary and four altar boys. The only part that I didn’t like, and it seemed out of place was when a woman got up to do one of the readings.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Those are musical settings of parts of the Mass. We sang the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei from the Missa di Angelis at the NO Masses I sang at for Holy Thursday. And no, they aren’t simply American
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Seems to me his last line or two indicates a sublte problem…here it it:
Now nothing “wrong” with that if it’s properly understood within the whole context of the mass and what it is - but it’s just that the primary focus here seems to be Christ offering himself to us rather than to the Father for us. It’s kind of inverted in my humble opinion - focus still on us rather than God.
Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon I and III come to mind.
Aside from that, I would agree with other posters here that the closer it gets to resemble the Traditional Mass, the better the liturgy will be (on the human side of course) - but then why re-invent the wheel when we’ve already got one
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
P
PatienceAndLove
Guest
But didn’t Christ give himself to us as the Eucharist?
I guess I am just not understand the interpretation you got…
J
jbuck919
Guest
Sometimes it’s not great fun to be an expert on something… The Mass of the Angels, to which I have no serious objection, is not true Gregorian but neo-Gregorian (and there is better neo-Gregorian). It is a classic situation that the low end of the scale of anything would be the most popular in the Catholic US. However, I’m not going to take to task anyone who loves the MOTA.
As far as other themes on this thread are concerned, I agree, you can find wonderful celebrations of the Mass–if you are willing to accept that in the US anyway you have to travel to two or three places in the entire country which has a Catholic population of many tens of millions. We should be able to go to our local parish and find something excellent, the way, for instance, that the Episcopalians do. It is simply not an important value of Catholicism in the US, or anything anyone who is less than heroic can fight to change, something I had to learn to deal with already when I was very young.
P
PatienceAndLove
Guest
As I asked ParamedicGirl, do you think that if we provided parishes with example of properly officiated NO masses (perhaps video of such masses), the parishes might provide more reverent NO services?
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
Oh, I’m sorry, I must have missed that question! The obvious answer is yes, of course. It would be a great example. How to make it happen is the question.
M
MTD
Guest
Those are settings for the singing of the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei in Gregorian Chant.
Oh, that was in Seattle if I remember correctly.
You should have driven just 3 more hours eek further south and you could have gone to a NO with Latin and a male reader! 
I think you are right in this. The key is the Father, not us. The Father gives us His Son to be the propitiation for our sins; the Son offers Himself to the Father as the perfect sacrifice first of all because of His infinite love for the Father and secondly because of His love for us. The Father accepts the sacrifice of His Son on our behalf and invites to unite ourselves to His Son in Holy Communion. Thus we are incorporated in the fullest way possible into this infinitely pleasing sacrifice and by virtue of our union with this perfect sacrifice are able to make proper adoration, thanksgiving, and reparation to the Father.
I’m not too sure of my theology there. I went on a retreat last September that had this as a theme; I’m not accustomed to taking notes, so I didn’t at the time. I now regret it because it was a most awesome presentation of the sacrifice of the Mass.
Maria
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Ho-ho, I DIDN’T say I loved it! I don’t. Our choir director is an excellent composer and HIS Latin Mass far outstrips the MOTA, IMHO. I wish we could ditch it.
G
Genesis315
Guest
It is a sad fact that liturgical abuses have profaned the Mass throughout history–and even made it sacriligious and idolotrous.
St. Catherine of Siena in her time (and Innocent III also condemned this practice in his) writes of priests who ommit the words of consecration and then offer the people simply bread to adore. Also, there was a problem of “idiots” being made priests for political or other scandalous reasons who weren’t trained to say Mass and who butchered it and totally messed up the words of consecration.
Likewise, there were Donkey Masses and Burlesque Masses.
Also, Lateran IV had to deal with major profanation of sacred vessels:
“We are unwilling to tolerate the fact that certain clerics deposit in churches their own and even others’ furniture, so that the churches look like lay houses rather than basilicas of God, regardless of the fact that the Lord would not allow a vessel to be carried through the temple. There are others who not only leave their churches uncared for but also leave the service vessels and ministers’ vestments and altar cloths and even corporals so dirty that they at times horrify some people.”
Nothing new under the sun.
St. Catherine of Siena in her time (and Innocent III also condemned this practice in his) writes of priests who ommit the words of consecration and then offer the people simply bread to adore. Also, there was a problem of “idiots” being made priests for political or other scandalous reasons who weren’t trained to say Mass and who butchered it and totally messed up the words of consecration.
Likewise, there were Donkey Masses and Burlesque Masses.
Also, Lateran IV had to deal with major profanation of sacred vessels:
“We are unwilling to tolerate the fact that certain clerics deposit in churches their own and even others’ furniture, so that the churches look like lay houses rather than basilicas of God, regardless of the fact that the Lord would not allow a vessel to be carried through the temple. There are others who not only leave their churches uncared for but also leave the service vessels and ministers’ vestments and altar cloths and even corporals so dirty that they at times horrify some people.”
Nothing new under the sun.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Absolutely! And that is a “fruit” of the mass that we may receive - the Lord’s body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. But reception of this infinitely awesome Sacrament is not the sole or even the primary purpose(s) of the mass.
Which makes sense if you think about it, because we are required to offer the mass on the Lord’s Day and on those Holy Days of Obligation - but we are only* required* to receive the Eucharist once a year during Eastertime…also why a simple Communion service does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.
Take what I wrote above, and add this to it. According to Church teaching, the main purpose of the mass is fourfold: Adoration, Thanksgiving, Reperation and Petition. Quoting from my Missal here…
The end of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was the salvation of mankind. As this end was attained fully and completely and for all times by the suffering of Christ, the purpose of the Holy Mass must be quite different from the purpose of the sacrifice on the cross. The Mass is an application of the merits of His death on the cross to us sinners. From this it follows that in a fuller way and with a more sublime signification than the sacrifices of the Old Testament, the Holy Mass is to be considered as:
*]An offering of adoration and recognition of the Supreme Magesty: Jesus Christ adores God as fully as He deserves. In the Mass, we honor God by God Himself, namely Jesus Christ.
*]An offering of thanksgiving to God, the origin of all blessing. Her also Jesus takes our place and He thanks the Creator with infinite perfection for all His heavenly and earthly blessings. By Jesus alone can we entirely fulfill our duty of thankfulness toward God.
*]An offering of atonement for forgiveness of daily sins and of temporal punishments due for mortal sins that are already forgiven. The Holy Mass makes mercy possible where there is sufficient sorrow for deadly sins.
*]As an offering of impetration or prayer. It is Jesus Who is praying for us in the Sacrifice, Jesus Whose prayers are always heard.
Hope all that helps.
Peace in Christ!
DustinsDad
- Status