SSPX View of the New Mass

[ProVobis]

Mgr Lefebvre said, “I would prefer the Old Mass in the vernacular to the New Mass in Latin”.

I can understand the theory behind that statement. But he seems to be trying to make a point rather than actually giving instructions on how to market the Old Mass better; otherwise he’s providing the same loopholes which the Vatican II documents made available. But that’s my opinion.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Quote:
Mgr Lefebvre said, “I would prefer the Old Mass in the vernacular to the New Mass in Latin”.

He was most definitely making that remark in the context of refuting the idea that trads should be satisfied with the Novus Ordo in Latin, rather that trying to preserve the Old Missal.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Should we be worrying about the minute details of the Liturgy when there are so many other huge problems in the Church? Alternatively, Should we be worrying about the minute details of the Liturgy when it is the Person of Christ who is in question?

I think the answer to this is in S. Teresa of Avila. She explains that the Faith is so vast and all-encompassing that it is not actually possible for any one soul to comprehend it all. Therefore God inspires particular souls with particular aspects of the Faith, and we do well to learn from each other. For example, some He inspires with the joy of the Resurrection; another with the mystery of the Holy Eucharist; another keeps Him company in His Passion, some by meditation and contemplation and another by actual suffering; another He inspires to a very learned and academic approach to the Faith. And some, I am sure, are inspired with a particular love of the Liturgy. It is incumbent upon us all not to make the mistake of thinking that our own approach to the Faith is the only valid one. (This is not directed at any individuals, but is a general statement about the Faith).

In the case we are discussing, on the one hand the Trads (or the Modernists, for that matter) must not equate the Faith with their observance of the Liturgy; on the other hand, those not so inclined ought not to minimise the validity of these preoccupations. One may insist that the normal Commandments be obeyed as well, but not to minimise liturgical matters completely.

 

[numealinesimpet]

**The cultural and philosophical baggage of Latin & European languages in general. **
There are two issues here: cultural and philosophical/theological.

**Cultural issues of Latin & European languages in general. **
All I can say here is that a reaction of hostility to Latin or European languages is by no means universal.

§ In Gabon, in West Africa, where Mgr Lefebvre carried out his missionary work in the 1940s and 1950s, to this day the Gabonese participate enthusiastically in the Latin liturgy. The Gabonese government issued a postage stamp featuring Mgr Lefebvre some time in the 70s or 80s – one of the few clerics ever depicted on a postage stamp. And to this very day, one can hear in Gabon on a Sunday something that has perhaps not been heard in Europe for a thousand years: a congregation of 2000 souls all singing the entire Solemn Mass in Latin Gregorian chant.

§ In Malawi, on the other side of Africa, the liturgy was updated and vernacularised in the 70s but, after about ten years, the congregation came to the priest and asked for the old Latin liturgy back again. I was told this about 1983 by a colleague who was in Malawi when this happened, as a member of VMM – Voluntary Missionaries Abroad – and he himself was not in the least enthusiastic about the traditional liturgy.

§ I have heard numerous reports from different places around the world where the Latin liturgy was favoured by the people because many tribes, each with its own tribal language, were wont to come together for Mass.

 

[JReducation]

I can understand the theory behind that statement. But he seems to be trying to make a point rather than actually giving instructions on how to market the Old Mass better; otherwise he’s providing the same loopholes which the Vatican II documents made available. But that’s my opinion.

Archbishop Lefebvre was trying to preserve the form. The language was accidental and he realized that. Having said this, I for one believe that even accidentals serve a useful purpose. But if I have to choose between what is accidental and what is absolutely necessay, it’s a no brainer. He felt that the form was what was absolutely necessary. That’s where he’s going wth this. Unfortunately, many people have distorted what he was thinking and have made the language as essential as the form. The Church of course disagreed on both counts, saying that the form and the language were good and should be preserved, but not essential to having a valid and reverent mass. This is why Pope Benedict speaks very strongly about one Roman Rite with two expressions. The mass is the essential and there are elements that make it the mass. Withou them, you don’t have a mass. A mass may look like a Protestant service, but when you place these elements into it, it is not a Protestant service. It is the mass. These are the essentials. Everything else supports the central point, which the the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist flowing into each other and working together to worship God and save man…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

Archbishop Lefebvre was trying to preserve the form. The language was accidental and he realized that. Having said this, I for one believe that even accidentals serve a useful purpose. But if I have to choose between what is accidental and what is absolutely necessay, it’s a no brainer. He felt that the form was what was absolutely necessary. That’s where he’s going wth this. Unfortunately, many people have distorted what he was thinking and have made the language as essential as the form. The Church of course disagreed on both counts, saying that the form and the language were good and should be preserved, but not essential to having a valid and reverent mass. This is why Pope Benedict speaks very strongly about one Roman Rite with two expressions. The mass is the essential and there are elements that make it the mass. Withou them, you don’t have a mass. A mass may look like a Protestant service, but when you place these elements into it, it is not a Protestant service. It is the mass. These are the essentials. Everything else supports the central point, which the the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist flowing into each other and working together to worship God and save man…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Excellent point Bro JR regarding the elements of the Mass which makes it the Mass. And this is why I believe it is a must for all Catholics to experience the Eastern Liturgies. Because even though some or most of these liturgies developed independently from the Roman Mass, people will see the familiar and same elements in every Liturgy. The only major difference is the order of prayers, but the same elements are there and they are in essence the same Mass. Having experienced Eastern Liturgies will help us appreciate that the Mass can come in many forms, but ultimately is the same.

 

[JReducation]

Excellent point Bro JR regarding the elements of the Mass which makes it the Mass. And this is why I believe it is a must for all Catholics to experience the Eastern Liturgies. Because even though some or most of these liturgies developed independently from the Roman Mass, people will see the familiar and same elements in every Liturgy. The only major difference is the order of prayers, but the same elements are there and they are in essence the same Mass. Having experienced Eastern Liturgies will help us appreciate that the Mass can come in many forms, but ultimately is the same.

The mass is the mass. If you take out the proclamation of the Word of God or the Sacrifice and the Communion, you have something else, but not a mass.

This does not mean that the accidentals have no value. They certainly do. They are like the jewels that help a queen look like a queen. Even in her PJs, she’s still the queen. But the crown and other stuff that are queenly are important. to her presence. The same could be said for the mass if you use anthropomorphism. Even it PJs, it’s still the mass. But just as I don’t want to see Queen Elizabeth in her PJs, I don’t want to see a mass stripped either.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

Archbishop Lefebvre was trying to preserve the form. The language was accidental and he realized that. Having said this, I for one believe that even accidentals serve a useful purpose. But if I have to choose between what is accidental and what is absolutely necessay, it’s a no brainer. He felt that the form was what was absolutely necessary. That’s where he’s going wth this. Unfortunately, many people have distorted what he was thinking and have made the language as essential as the form. The Church of course disagreed on both counts, saying that the form and the language were good and should be preserved, but not essential to having a valid and reverent mass. This is why Pope Benedict speaks very strongly about one Roman Rite with two expressions. The mass is the essential and there are elements that make it the mass. Withou them, you don’t have a mass. A mass may look like a Protestant service, but when you place these elements into it, it is not a Protestant service. It is the mass. These are the essentials. Everything else supports the central point, which the the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist flowing into each other and working together to worship God and save man…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

And the corollary of this is that the Lutheran and Anglican masses lack in one essential, but not those of the Anaphora nor Liturgy of the word… Namely, Valid Ministers. (Hence, the Anglican Catholic Book of Divine Worship… which is the Anglican BCP with papal commemorations and a couple incidental additions…)

 

[numealinesimpet]

Archbishop Lefebvre was trying to preserve the form. The language was accidental and he realized that. Having said this, I for one believe that even accidentals serve a useful purpose. But if I have to choose between what is accidental and what is absolutely necessay, it’s a no brainer. He felt that the form was what was absolutely necessary. That’s where he’s going wth this.

Just to make it clear, “The Form” in Thomistic language means “the content”. (In English it can mean the opposite: the “appearance” or “the dressing” – in fact, what we are here calling “the Accidentals”.) (This is another reason for keeping Latin, but I hope we’ll get back to that).

It is widely held that Mgr Lefebvre was a major contributor to the “Ottaviani Intervention” which was originally signed by eleven cardinals. Nine of them withdrew after the draft was leaked by a very imprudent cleric, who had been given a copy ‘under embargo’ before it was presented to the Holy Father.

From the Ottaviani Intervention 1969:

The study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo
Missae–considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely
different interpretations which are implied or taken for
granted–represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking
departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in
Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite
definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier
against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.

1. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even
   if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal
   considerations, do not seem sufficient. The innovations in the Novus
   Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor
   place–if it subsists at all–could well turn into a certainty the
   suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which
   have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or
   ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which
   the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply
   demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without
   leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who
   already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their
   faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis
   of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily.
   fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

 

[JReducation]

Just to make it clear, “The Form” in Thomistic language means “the content”. (In English it can mean the opposite: the “appearance” or “the dressing” – in fact, what we are here calling “the Accidentals”.) (This is another reason for keeping Latin, but I hope we’ll get back to that).

It is widely held that Mgr Lefebvre was a major contributor to the “Ottaviani Intervention” which was originally signed by eleven cardinals. Nine of them withdrew after the draft was leaked by a very imprudent cleric, who had been given a copy ‘under embargo’ before it was presented to the Holy Father.

From the Ottaviani Intervention 1969:

I’m using the term “form” as Pope Benedict used it in SP. Pope Benedict, for obvious reasons, uses the term “form” in the Franiscan usage, not the Thomistic usage.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

I’m using the term “form” as Pope Benedict used it in SP. Pope Benedict, for obvious reasons, uses the term “form” in the Franiscan usage, not the Thomistic usage.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks, Bro. Would you mind spelling it out? I certainly don’t want to muddy the issue.

I realise that His Holiness speaks of “two forms” of the Roman rite. But do you have a definition of “Form” in Franciscan usage?

 

[JReducation]

Thanks, Bro. Would you mind spelling it out? I certainly don’t want to muddy the issue.

I realise that His Holiness speaks of “two forms” of the Roman rite. But do you have a definition of “Form” in Franciscan usage?

Remember that Pope Benedict has his two degrees, one on Augustine and the other on Bonaventure?

One thing that I’ve noticed in his writings and his talks is that he uses a lot of Bonaventure’s language, which is Franciscan, because that’s how Bonaventure thought. I’ve learned to listen to him and read his writings with my Franciscan brain, LOL.

Form, means the “manner”. When he says the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form, he is saying the Ordinary Manner and the Extraordinary Manner. It’s referring to the exeternal appearance or the part that we can see.

Bonaventure used the term “form” of the sacraments to explain the ritual and the “essence” to explain the action itself. For example, the form of Baptism is the water, words, the candidate and the person doing the baptizing. The essence is what actually happens in the sacrament of Bapism.

When the Holy Father says that the two are forms of the same rite, he is saying that they are two manners of celebrating the Roman Mass.

I know this is oversimplifying it a bit, but due to the fact that we’re on an internet forum, it’s a little hard to go into the fine details in 500 words or less.

Every pope is going to have his own language For example, Pope Paul VI was a Canon Lawyer, a Doctor of Law to be exact. His language was often very convoluted and full of syllogisms, because that’s how lawyers think and speak.

John Paul II was a Doctor of Philosphy, his language is very metaphysical. That’s hwo he spoke and thought, not to mention that he was a mystic too. God knows that they don’t always use language the way the rest of the world does.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

Remember that Pope Benedict has his two degrees, one on Augustine and the other on Bonaventure?

One thing that I’ve noticed in his writings and his talks is that he uses a lot of Bonaventure’s language, which is Franciscan, because that’s how Bonaventure thought. I’ve learned to listen to him and read his writings with my Franciscan brain, LOL.

Form, means the “manner”. When he says the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form, he is saying the Ordinary Manner and the Extraordinary Manner. It’s referring to the exeternal appearance or the part that we can see.

Bonaventure used the term “form” of the sacraments to explain the ritual and the “essence” to explain the action itself. For example, the form of Baptism is the water, words, the candidate and the person doing the baptizing. The essence is what actually happens in the sacrament of Bapism.

When the Holy Father says that the two are forms of the same rite, he is saying that they are two manners of celebrating the Roman Mass.

I know this is oversimplifying it a bit, but due to the fact that we’re on an internet forum, it’s a little hard to go into the fine details in 500 words or less.

Every pope is going to have his own language For example, Pope Paul VI was a Canon Lawyer, a Doctor of Law to be exact. His language was often very convoluted and full of syllogisms, because that’s how lawyers think and speak.

John Paul II was a Doctor of Philosphy, his language is very metaphysical. That’s hwo he spoke and thought, not to mention that he was a mystic too. God knows that they don’t always use language the way the rest of the world does.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes. Thank you! Can we use the word “version” for this posting? What Mgr Lefebvre & the others point out is that the two “versions” of the Roman Rite differ greatly in their content.

But it is a little difficult to go into precise detail, because the Forum rules forbid direct comparisons (to avoid generating more heat than light). That is why I have referred forum members to material already on the web.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Remember that Pope Benedict has his two degrees, one on Augustine and the other on Bonaventure?

One thing that I’ve noticed in his writings and his talks is that he uses a lot of Bonaventure’s language, which is Franciscan, because that’s how Bonaventure thought. I’ve learned to listen to him and read his writings with my Franciscan brain, LOL.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think this layman is a Thomistic Dominican at heart.
Remember that sad occasion when a Benedictine, a Franciscan, a Dominican and a Jesuit were chanting Vespers when suddenly the light went out?
The Benedictine didn’t miss a note because of course he knew it all by heart anyway. The Franciscan exclaimed, “Welcome, Brother Darkness!” The Dominican stroked his chin and mused “What, then, is the nature of light?” And the Jesuit changed the light bulb.

 

[ProVobis]

The mass is the mass. If you take out the proclamation of the Word of God or the Sacrifice and the Communion, you have something else, but not a mass.

This does not mean that the accidentals have no value. They certainly do. They are like the jewels that help a queen look like a queen. Even in her PJs, she’s still the queen. But the crown and other stuff that are queenly are important. to her presence. The same could be said for the mass if you use anthropomorphism. Even it PJs, it’s still the mass. But just as I don’t want to see Queen Elizabeth in her PJs, I don’t want to see a mass stripped either.

I’ll agree with you on that.

These “accidentals” (including language and rubrics) also help you recognize to the Mass. Or they should, anyway. Those who had stayed away from the Mass altogether in the 60’s and returned in the 70’s for whatever reason were bound to be shocked and indeed questioned whether this was the same Mass. So the question is, was it that necessary to confuse them? Maybe this is a rhetorical question but if the Pope had called the praying of the rosary the new Mass, would they have known better? While the (I hate to use this word but I have to) “substance” of the Mass remained the same, nevertheless there was a significant paradigm shift in accepting it as a method of Catholic worship.
there was a definite paradigm shift in accepting the

 

[ProVobis]

The mass is the mass. If you take out the proclamation of the Word of God or the Sacrifice and the Communion, you have something else, but not a mass.

This does not mean that the accidentals have no value. They certainly do. They are like the jewels that help a queen look like a queen. Even in her PJs, she’s still the queen. But the crown and other stuff that are queenly are important. to her presence. The same could be said for the mass if you use anthropomorphism. Even it PJs, it’s still the mass. But just as I don’t want to see Queen Elizabeth in her PJs, I don’t want to see a mass stripped either.

I’ll agree with you on that.

These “accidentals” (including language and rubrics) also help you recognize to the Mass. Or they should, anyway. Those who had stayed away from the Mass altogether in the 60’s and returned in the 70’s for whatever reason were bound to be shocked and indeed questioned whether this was the same Mass. So the question is, was it that necessary to confuse them? Maybe this is a rhetorical question but if the Pope had called the praying of the rosary the new Mass, would they have known better? While the (I hate to use this word but I have to) “substance” of the Mass remained the same, nevertheless there was a significant paradigm shift in accepting it as a method of Catholic worship.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I’ll agree with you on that.

These “accidentals” (including language and rubrics) also help you recognize to the Mass. Or they should, anyway. Those who had stayed away from the Mass altogether in the 60’s and returned in the 70’s for whatever reason were bound to be shocked and indeed questioned whether this was the same Mass. So the question is, was it that necessary to confuse them? Maybe this is a rhetorical question but if the Pope had called the praying of the rosary the new Mass, would they have known better? While the (I hate to use this word but I have to) “substance” of the Mass remained the same, nevertheless there was a significant paradigm shift in accepting it as a method of Catholic worship.

Well, this is what the eleven cardinals said about that …

1. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place–if it subsists at all–could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily. fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

Pope Paul VI never replied to this document.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, this is what the eleven cardinals said about that …

I understand that Cardinal Ottaviani, who authored this document, had been Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a very high position within the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The mass is the mass. If you take out the proclamation of the Word of God or the Sacrifice and the Communion, you have something else, but not a mass.

This does not mean that the accidentals have no value. They certainly do. They are like the jewels that help a queen look like a queen. Even in her PJs, she’s still the queen. But the crown and other stuff that are queenly are important. to her presence. The same could be said for the mass if you use anthropomorphism. Even it PJs, it’s still the mass. But just as I don’t want to see Queen Elizabeth in her PJs, I don’t want to see a mass stripped either.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The problem is that many get caught on these accidentals. I think that is the theme of this thread. If an accidental is changed or removed, then some would think less of the Mass. That is why I would love to encourage people to attend Eastern Liturgies. The accidentals are different, but the essentials are the same. The Mass is the same Mass no matter what the form is. Experiencing different Liturgies would go a long way in making people understand that.

 

[laszlo]

I understand that Cardinal Ottaviani, who authored this document, had been Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a very high position within the Magisterium of the Church.

Any time I start to read it, I get confused about the intellectual honesty

The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.

In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was required to pass judgement on the experimental celebration of a so-called “normative Mass” (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters.

This is a typical first reading vote. 78 bishops accepted it. More than half of the juxta modum was for more radical changes, and many wanted insignificant changes. Adding only half of the juxta modum represents 109 pro votes, a majority.

ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

On that time I followed closed the statements from or about Cardinal Ottaviani. I my opinion it is almost impossible that he wrote this.