Synod: Final Draft on Latin Mass

[oat_soda]

it will die out, because the Church, even the traditional Church, is still living and growing. At the very least it would benefit the adherents of the old missal to consider incorporating those saints canonized since 1962 into the liturgical calendar in some way. Organic growth is not only a guiding principle but IMO a necessity for a living organism such as the Church.

i totally agree. it would be nice if the traditionalists were not so ridgid. this makes them appear a little crazy and hurts thier cause in the long run.

but, i will say i agree with about 99% of what they stand for. the post conciliar church went too far in its reforms. they need to get back to that center position. the pauline mass was not really what the laity wanted. only a select few. it only exasterbated the problems of the time instead of standing in opposition.

 

[Anima_Christi]

oat soda:

i totally agree. it would be nice if the traditionalists were not so ridgid. this makes them appear a little crazy and hurts thier cause in the long run.

but, i will say i agree with about 99% of what they stand for. the post conciliar church went too far in its reforms. they need to get back to that center position. the pauline mass was not really what the laity wanted. only a select few. it only exasterbated the problems of the time instead of standing in opposition.

I wonder if the Church would ever consider establishing a separate Tridentine Rite for traditional Catholics? I think that would be great and it would allow traditional Catholics to stretch out and grow on their own. I mean, there are different rites within the Eastern Church, why couldn’t that be the case with the Latin Church too? (Im thinking in addition to having the Novus Ordo Roman rite, have a Tridentine rite, maybe an Anglican rite, etc.)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Andreas Hofer:

Also, I agree that one should not develop a slavish devotion to an exact liturgical form. A traditionalist who advocates this is intentionally blind to the reforms conducted on the Pian missal until it was supplanted in 1970. I think that if traditionalism seeks to remain forever in 1962 it will die out, because the Church, even the traditional Church, is still living and growing. At the very least it would benefit the adherents of the old missal to consider incorporating those saints canonized since 1962 into the liturgical calendar in some way. Organic growth is not only a guiding principle but IMO a necessity for a living organism such as the Church.

I think we have come to a meeting of the minds here. I agree with you 100%.

For myself though (and maybe its because I am a Byzantine Catholic) I find the liturgy in the vernacular the best.

 

[oat_soda]

why couldn’t that be the case with the Latin Church too? (Im thinking in addition to having the Novus Ordo Roman rite, have a Tridentine rite, maybe an Anglican rite, etc.)

i think this was brought up in the last synod meeting but was not considered seriously. the traditionalists are only a minority and probably only important nationally in France. i think the problem with having a seperate rite is that it is part of the latin rite. i think it would be better if the novus ordo mass were to gradually be celebrated like the tridentine mass so that we would have a good comprimise. i fear that seperating the two will polarize the mass too much where you would have traditionalists on one hand and praise and worship rock n’ roll/folk masses on the other.

 

[totustuusmaria]

thistle:

I agree with you. I was brought up a Methodist and converted to the catholic faith and I see nothing in any Mass I have attended that resembles the communion in the Methodist church.

Although Michael Davies documents how the Novus Ordo adopted most of what Kramer did in his liturgical revolution, I don’t think that the central point is how the Mass looks as compared with protestant ecclesial communities, but how the mass doesn’t look when compared with the Traditional Latin Mass and why it doesn’t look that way.

Fr. Bugnini who primarily wrote the New Mass explains the changes this way:

Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

I know from my own experience that the New Mass isn’t generally acceptable to protestants–but they certainly tried. This was especially done with Eucharistic Prayer II which has been adopted by some Episcopalians and Lutherans.

I like many things about the Novus Ordo. That doesn’t change the fact that many changes were horrible. Do I have to list them?

 

[totustuusmaria]

oat soda:

i think this was brought up in the last synod meeting but was not considered seriously. the traditionalists are only a minority and probably only important nationally in France. i think the problem with having a seperate rite is that it is part of the latin rite. i think it would be better if the novus ordo mass were to gradually be celebrated like the tridentine mass so that we would have a good comprimise. i fear that seperating the two will polarize the mass too much where you would have traditionalists on one hand and praise and worship rock n’ roll/folk masses on the other.

That’s not a good comprimise since, as Cardinal Ratzinger said, the Novus Ordo is a FABRICATED liturgy. Also, there are many rites within the Latin Church: the mozarabic rite, the rite of Milan, the Dominican Rite, etc. The Novus Ordo is clearly a different rite than the Tridentine Rite. It is an utter falsity to claim that the Novus Ordo is merely a organic growth of the Tridentine Rite. Fr. Bugnini wrote a new liturgy. The problem is that the Novus Ordo was promulgated under the implied fiction that it was the continuation of Quo Primum. But Quo Primum guarantees the right to use the Tridenentine Mass, not the Mass of Paul VI. Since Quo Primum was never abrogated, one would presume that that right is still in effect.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

totustuusmaria:

Although Michael Davies documents how the Novus Ordo adopted most of what Kramer did in his liturgical revolution, I don’t think that the central point is how the Mass looks as compared with protestant ecclesial communities, but how the mass doesn’t look when compared with the Traditional Latin Mass and why it doesn’t look that way.
Did Mr. Davies bother to also demonstrate the similarities between Cranmer’s liturgy and the old Sarum rite, which WAS acceptable to the Church until after Trent?

Fr. Bugnini who primarily wrote the New Mass explains the changes this way:

Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965 Removing “stumbling blocks” is not the same thing as rendering the Mass Protestant. We are commanded in the New Testament NOT to be stumbling blocks.

I know from my own experience that the New Mass isn’t generally acceptable to protestants–but they certainly tried. This was especially done with Eucharistic Prayer II which has been adopted by some Episcopalians and Lutherans. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

I like many things about the Novus Ordo. That doesn’t change the fact that many changes were horrible. Do I have to list them? “Many changes were horrible” is an extremely subjective opinion. I might agreee with you on some of them, but disagree on others. The Pauline Mass is the normative Mass of the Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

totustuusmaria:

That’s not a good comprimise since, as Cardinal Ratzinger said, the Novus Ordo is a FABRICATED liturgy. Also, there are many rites within the Latin Church: the mozarabic rite, the rite of Milan, the Dominican Rite, etc. The Novus Ordo is clearly a different rite than the Tridentine Rite. It is an utter falsity to claim that the Novus Ordo is merely a organic growth of the Tridentine Rite. Fr. Bugnini wrote a new liturgy. The problem is that the Novus Ordo was promulgated under the implied fiction that it was the continuation of Quo Primum. But Quo Primum guarantees the right to use the Tridenentine Mass, not the Mass of Paul VI. Since Quo Primum was never abrogated, one would presume that that right is still in effect.

Like the Scriptures, Quo Pimum will mean what the Church will say it means. Also, Saint Pius V had no authority to bind future popes in terms of the dicipline of the Mass. If a future pope were to say that under no circumstances could the TLM be celebrated, he would be acting with his legitimate authority and we would be bound in conscience to submit to him. If the pope says that bishops have the authority to say yea or nay to the TLM in their diocese, then that’s how it is. If he says that priests everywhere have the right to celebrate it unhindered, then that’s also how it is. And Popes don’t generally invoke fiction in their promulgations. If Paul VI or John Paul II or Benedict XVI say,“This is what Quo Primum means,” then that’s what it means. The Pope is the supreme legislator.

 

[totustuusmaria]

Part I:
Stumbling Blocks: it isn’t good to remove stumbling blocks when the “stumbling blocks” are Catholic dogmas. For example, the new three Eucharistic prayers makes no distinction between the Priest and the people. It is absolutely true that the priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass and without the priest there is no sacrifice, but the protestants believe that every man is a priest unto himself. “Removing stumbling blocks” also meant allowing the mass to be celebrated with the priest as “presider” rather than priest. Now, of course, the Catholic doctrine didn’t change, but it doesn’t help the cause of unity to make the mass “exceptable” to heresy.

Another example: Eucharistic prayer II never once mentions the Divine Victim. The closest it comes is in the word “sacrifice” and with the phrase “the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.” Both of these have been interpreted by various protestants as refering to the sacrifice that the people constitute rather than the Divine Victim.

Another example: the old offeratory rite mentioned sacrifice. Here are the prayers:

Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this spotless host**(Hostiam: victim), which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer to Theedisction between priest and people**, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences; on behalf of all here present Further distinction and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting.** Salvific Nature of the Sacrifice** AmenOmmited

O God, + Who established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and still more admirably restored it, grant that by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, may we come to share in His Divinity, who humbled himself to share in our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.Retained in Novus Ordo in a trunkated version

We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation** While not incompatable with Protestant theology, this certainly makes protestants feel uncomfortable**, humbly begging of Thy mercy that it may arise before Thy divine Majesty, with a pleasing fragrance, for our salvation and for that of the whole world. once again: this sacrifice is for salvation. Omitted

Server: Amen.

In a humble spirit and with a contrite heart, may we be accepted by Thee, O Lord, and may our sacrifice so be offered in Thy sight this day as to please Thee, who art our Lord and our God.Omitted by Bugnini, but later restored in a trunkated version

Come, O Sanctifier, Almighty and Eternal God, and bless, + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name.Omitted, but included within the three added anaphoras as the epiklesis

I wash my hands among the innocent, and I go around Your altar, O Lord, that I may hear the voice of praise, and tell of all Thy wondrous works. O Lord, I have loved the beauty of Thy house and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Take not away my soul, O God with the wicked: nor my life with men of blood. On their hands are crimes, and their right hands are full of bribes. But as for me I have walked in my innocence; redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot has stood in the right way;s in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.trunkated

Accept, most Holy Trinity, this offering which we are making to Thee in remembrance of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, Our Lord; and in honor of blessed Mary, ever Virgin, Blessed John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of (name of the Saints whose relics are in the Altar) and of all the Saints;** Reference to saints: not liked by protestants** that it may add to their honor and aid our salvation; and may they deign to intercede in heaven for us who honor their memory here on earth. Through the same Christ our Lord. omitted! Wow this paragraph is not acceptable to Protestants, to say the least

Server: Amen.

These prayers emphasize: 1) The difference between the priest and the congregation, 2) the name of the mass as sacrifice, 3) the nature of the sacrifice as salvific, 4) the honor due to Mary and the Saints, and 5) the veneration due to relics. All of these are unacceptable to protestants, so they were removed. But by removing them the Catholics weren’t actually furthering the sake of reunion, but rather making the mass more acceptable to heresy.

 

[totustuusmaria]

Part II:
Here’s the new prayers:
Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi,
quia de tua largitate accepimus
panem, quem tibi offerimus,
fructum terrae et operis
manuum hominum:
ex quo nobis fiet panis vitae.

(Blessed art Thou, O Lord, God of all
Because from thy plentitude we take
bred, which we offer unto Thee
the fruit of the earth and the word
of the hands of men:
From which for us shall be made the bread of life.)** It phrase: “the bread of life” is ambigous enough to not be offensive to proestants who want to justify it somehow.)**

R. Benedictus Deus in saecula.
(O blessed is God unto the ages!)I appreciate the blessing of God. The New Mass eliminated the “Benedicamus Domino,” so, at least it includes one place where the Lord is blessed.

Per huius aquae et vini mysterium
eius efficiamur divinitatis consortes,
qui humanitatis nostrae fieri dignatus
est particeps.
(Through the mystery of this water and wine
May we be effectively made sharers of His divinity
who humbled himself to share our humanity)

Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi,
quia de tua largitate accepimus vinum,
quod tibi offerimus, fructum vitis et
operis manuum hominum, ex quo nobis
fiet potus spiritalis.
(Blessed art Thou, O Lord, God of all,
because from Thy plentitude to take wine,
which we offer unto Thee, the fruit of the vine and
the world of the hands of men, from which for us shall be made the spiritual drink.) They even shy away from the phrase: “chalice of salvation” in this one and settle for “spiritual drink” which is about an ambiguous as one can get

R. Benedictus Deus in saecula.
(O blessed be God unto the ages!)

In spiritu humilitatis et in animo
contrito suscipiamur a te, Domine;
et sic fiat sacrificium nostrum in
conspectu tuo hodie, ut placeat tibi,
Domine Deus.
(In a spirit of humanity and in a contrite mind (heart, soul),
may we be accepted by Thee, O Lord;
and thus let this our sacrifice in
Thy sight this day be pleasing unto Thee,
O Lord God.) Bugnini made a mistake in omitting this completly. If he hadn’t omitted it, he could have edited it to remove the references to a pleasing sacrifice. But, because he omitted it, it was later restored by the Pope as it was in the Old Mass

Lava me, Domine, ab iniquitate mea,
et a peccato meo munda me.
(Wash me, O Lord, from my iniquity,
and from my sin cleanse me.) very trunkated

They didn’t even leave the old prayers as an option, but rather insisted that everyone use these prayers which makes me distinction between priest and people, makes only one reference to Sacrifice (a reference originally omitted) and that one silently!, makes no reference to the Saints or to relics.

Another example is the Orate Fratres prayer which Bugnini (and his protestant advisers) also supressed but the Vatican later restored. This prayer mentions sacrifice, and the response says “at thy hands…” which emphasizes the “presider’s” role as priest.

Another example is the ommission of the Saints from the confeor.

"I confess to almighty God, to Blessed Mary Every-Virgin, to blessed Michael to Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, to the Blessed apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to you brethren that I have sinned through my thoughts, words and deeps.
My fault, my fault, my most grevious fault
Therefore I beg the Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, the Blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed John the Baptist, the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and you my brethren to pray for me to the Lord our God.

becomes:

I confess to almighty God and to you my brothers that I have sinned by my thought, words, deeds, and ommissions.
My fault, my fault, my most grevious fault.
Therefor I beg blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, all the angels and Saints, and you my brothers to pray for me to the Lord our God.

The confiteor is not said my the priest alone with the word “brothers” and then by the people with the word “father” because that emphasizes the difference between the priest and the people in the liturgy.
In addition the “indulgentiam” absolution is surpressed.

Another example: the prayer after communion no longer states: and through the intercession of blessed Mary ever Virgin…and all the saints keep us free from sin and protect us from all peturbations…
This, of course, was unnaceptable because, not only did it mention the Saints, but it asked for favors through them.

Bugnini also wanted to edit Eucharistic Prayer I, the Roman Canon, but he didn’t do it because Pope Paul VI told him not to.

At what point do we stop removing our offensive doctrines from our liturgy? The Catholic Doctrine didn’t change, but the mass sure doesn’t express it as well anymore. It doesn’t serve ecumenism to make the mass acceptable to protestants. All that that serves is the making of Catholics even more ignorant of Catholic truth.

 

[totustuusmaria]

JKirkLVNV:

Like the Scriptures, Quo Pimum will mean what the Church will say it means. Also, Saint Pius V had no authority to bind future popes in terms of the dicipline of the Mass. If a future pope were to say that under no circumstances could the TLM be celebrated, he would be acting with his legitimate authority and we would be bound in conscience to submit to him. If the pope says that bishops have the authority to say yea or nay to the TLM in their diocese, then that’s how it is. If he says that priests everywhere have the right to celebrate it unhindered, then that’s also how it is. And Popes don’t generally invoke fiction in their promulgations. If Paul VI or John Paul II or Benedict XVI say,“This is what Quo Primum means,” then that’s what it means. The Pope is the supreme legislator.

Do you realize how great a heresy that is? The Church is the servant of the scriptures, but the scriptures of the Church. The Scriptures mean what the Holy Ghost meant them to mean, not what the Church means them to mean. It just so happens that the Holy Ghost directs the interpretation of the Church so that she faithfully expounds the meaning the scriptures.

Of course, if a pope legislated that no priest could offer the Traditional Latin Mass, he has the authority to do this–although it would be a total slap in the fact of St. Pius V who said that Quo Primum was in perpetuity no matter what a future Pope said. The fact of the matter is that the Pope has in no way officially abrogated Quo Primum.

However, the Pope has to abrogate Quo Primum before the rights of Quo Primum are null and void. He can tell the Bishops all he wants to control who can say the mass or who can’t, but, until he writes an official document saying that priests no longer have this right which was given them in perpetuity, the priests still have the right. I’m not saying, then, that a priest should disobey his bishop if his ordinary forbade him to say the Latin Mass. That’s an issue of conscience. However, a priest doesn’t have a canonical duty to get permission before he says the Latin Mass. He may have a moral duty to do it in virtue of his vow of obedience.

Now, if Benedict XVI were to authoritatively say: This is what quo primum means" that wouldn’t change that quo primum means what it says, but it would change the discipline of the Church because there would now be a new canonical interpretation of Quo Primum. The Pope has never done this.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

totustuusmaria:

Part I:
Stumbling Blocks: it isn’t good to remove stumbling blocks when the “stumbling blocks” are Catholic dogmas. For example, the new three Eucharistic prayers makes no distinction between the Priest and the people. It is absolutely true that the priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass and without the priest there is no sacrifice, but the protestants believe that every man is a priest unto himself. “Removing stumbling blocks” also meant allowing the mass to be celebrated with the priest as “presider” rather than priest. Now, of course, the Catholic doctrine didn’t change, but it doesn’t help the cause of unity to make the mass “exceptable” to heresy. Yes, I realize what protestants believe, I was one. There is nothing in the Pauline Mass that resembles anything in Protestantism, save what you say they’ve copied (Anglicans and Lutherans). And I was a Baptist (hard shell southern), then a High Church Anglican. The Pauline Mass resembles NOTHING in the Protestant communion services, save the Anglican, which drew on the old Sarum rite. I see nothing heretical in the 3 prayers, though I prefer the Roman canon, nor anything that diminishes the oblationary, propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice, thus no diminishment of the priest’s role. I think “presider” and “priest” are understood in our Mass to be one and the same, except for some extreme liberals (in the minority). And the dogmas haven’t been removed.

Another example: Eucharistic prayer II never once mentions the Divine Victim. The closest it comes is in the word “sacrifice” and with the phrase “the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.” Both of these have been interpreted by various protestants as refering to the sacrifice that the people constitute rather than the Divine Victim. Their misinterpretation is hardly the fault of the Church. Anyone with decent catechesis understands that the sacrifice refers to Jesus as the Victim, and as He’s divine, He is, ergo, the DIVINE VICITIM

Another example: the old offeratory rite mentioned sacrifice. Here are the prayers:

Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this spotless host**(Hostiam: victim), which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer to Theedisction between priest and people**, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences; on behalf of all here present Further distinction and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting.** Salvific Nature of the Sacrifice** AmenOmmited

These prayers emphasize: 1) The difference between the priest and the congregation, 2) the name of the mass as sacrifice, 3) the nature of the sacrifice as salvific, 4) the honor due to Mary and the Saints, and 5) the veneration due to relics. All of these are unacceptable to protestants, so they were removed. But by removing them the Catholics weren’t actually furthering the sake of reunion, but rather making the mass more acceptable to heresy.

Yes, I think the old prayer far more more beautiful and I wonder why it wasn’t simply translated as is, BUT…I deny that the Church means anything else other than what She has meant for 2000 years. I don’t believe it lessens the difference between priest and people (he’s the man up front in the chasuble who is “Alter Christi.” It’s still a sacrifice and is presented and understood as one (witness the numerous Protestant accusations that we "crucify Jesus again.) that is salvific. I don’t know what happens in the Mass you attend, but Mary is mentioned in all the appropriate places at my parish. And we use the saints who’s feast it is, not those enclosed in the altar, but saints and their example and their intercession are emphasized.

 

[totustuusmaria]

JKirkLVNV:

Yes, I think the old prayer far more more beautiful and I wonder why it wasn’t simply translated as is, BUT…I deny that the Church means anything else other than what She has meant for 2000 years. I don’t believe it lessens the difference between priest and people (he’s the man up front in the chasuble who is “Alter Christi.” It’s still a sacrifice and is presented and understood as one (witness the numerous Protestant accusations that we "crucify Jesus again.) that is salvific. I don’t know what happens in the Mass you attend, but Mary is mentioned in all the appropriate places at my parish. And we use the saints who’s feast it is, not those enclosed in the altar, but saints and their example and their intercession are emphasized.

Without commenting on the second part, I’d just like to say that I also deny that the Church means anything different. I don’t think the Church means anything different, I just think that the changes were made so that protestants could attend the New Mass without having to change their beliefs.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

totustuusmaria:

Do you realize how great a heresy that is? The Church is the servant of the scriptures, but the scriptures of the Church. The Scriptures mean what the Holy Ghost meant them to mean, not what the Church means them to mean.** It just so happens that the Holy Ghost directs the interpretation of the Church so that she faithfully expounds the meaning the scriptures.**

Of course, if a pope legislated that no priest could offer the Traditional Latin Mass, he has the authority to do this–although it would be a total slap in the fact of St. Pius V who said that Quo Primum was in perpetuity no matter what a future Pope said. The fact of the matter is that the Pope has in no way officially abrogated Quo Primum.

However, the Pope has to abrogate Quo Primum before the rights of Quo Primum are null and void. He can tell the Bishops all he wants to control who can say the mass or who can’t, but, until he writes an official document saying that priests no longer have this right which was given them in perpetuity, the priests still have the right. I’m not saying, then, that a priest should disobey his bishop if his ordinary forbade him to say the Latin Mass. That’s an issue of conscience. However, a priest doesn’t have a canonical duty to get permission before he says the Latin Mass. He may have a moral duty to do it in virtue of his vow of obedience.

Now, if Benedict XVI were to authoritatively say: This is what quo primum means" that wouldn’t change that quo primum means what it says, but it would change the discipline of the Church because there would now be a new canonical interpretation of Quo Primum. The Pope has never done this.

I mean that the Church is the ultimate arbitrator of WHAT Holy Writ means and that it does not mean contrary to what the Church says it means. See your last sentence in the first paragraph? What I wrote means no more and no less. There was a bit of a tussle called the Reformation over precisely who had the right to interpret Scripture.

AND it wouldn’t be a slap in the face of Saint Pius. It would simply be the exercise of a Pontiff’s rightful authority. The essentials of the Mass that cannot change are that there must be the proper matter (bread and wine, not a rock and sea water), the proper intent (to confect the Sacrifice) and the proper form (“this is My Body,” “this is My Blood”), though I think one ancient liturgy is permitted that doesn’t use our exact form, but is permitted because it dates from Apostolic times. There has to be a priest, validly ordained, to confect the Sacrifice. There rest, whether it “Suscipe, Domine Sanctus” or “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God” is a part of the discipline that surrounds the dogma, the essentials. I’m not saying that it SHOULD change, I’m saying that it CAN change, by the promulgation of the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

And I didn’t say Quo Primum had been abrogated. But as you say, priests have at least the moral obligation to obey their bishops. I’ve always believed that there was a regretable tendency on the part of the bishops to quash any attempts to have the TLM and that they should be more generous in their application of the Indult. But I’m going to defend the Mass of Paul VI, which hasn’t been repressed, doesn’t look to be repressed, was lawfully promulgated, is the normative Mass of the Church and is celebrated by the Pope (the last four, in fact).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

totustuusmaria:

Without commenting on the second part, I’d just like to say that I also deny that the Church means anything different. I don’t think the Church means anything different, I just think that the changes were made so that protestants could attend the New Mass without having to change their beliefs.

That’s because you believe in the “Bugnini Conspiracy” theory. I don’t. I’ve yet to see it propounded by any reliable, credible source. I’ve only seen it cited in radical traditionalist sites or publications. I also don’t believe the man was a Mason!

Your web page is very well done, by the way.

 

[totustuusmaria]

JKirkLVNV:

That’s because you believe in the “Bugnini Conspiracy” theory. I don’t. I’ve yet to see it propounded by any reliable, credible source. I’ve only seen it cited in radical traditionalist sites or publications. I also don’t believe the man was a Mason!

I don’t believe in any Bugnini Conspiracy theory, I just believe that the New Mass was made to Ecumenical by Bugnini, the protestant advisers, and the other experts on the panel. That’s not exactly a “conspiracy” theory. I don’t claim that this was the sole reason for the modifications. Some of the modifications really do fulfil the requests of the Second Vatican Council. It is my opinion (though I have no proof), however, that the modifications I listed in the preceeding post were, at least to some measure, motivated by the desire “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965) as a mentioned above. Thus it wasn’t nearly as high a priority to maintain the traditional prayers as to have a liturgy which wouldn’t offend protestants as much. I don’t think that it is a good thing to have a liturgy which doesn’t offend protestants. That probably means that most of what is specifically Catholic in the Liturgy has been gutted.

It isn’t a conspiracy theory to say that this was a motivation of Bugnini and the council. I’m not convinced of the conspiracy theories, nor have I seen any conclusive evidence that Bugnini was a Mason. With that said, it isn’t necesary for him to be a mason. Archbishop Bugnini thought that the Mass was a place for Ecumenism. I think the Mass is the place for Catholicism. Those are two different approaches.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

totustuusmaria:

I don’t believe in any Bugnini Conspiracy theory, I just believe that the New Mass was made to Ecumenical by Bugnini, the protestant advisers, and the other experts on the panel. That’s not exactly a “conspiracy” theory. I don’t claim that this was the sole reason for the modifications. Some of the modifications really do fulfil the requests of the Second Vatican Council. It is my opinion (though I have no proof), however, that the modifications I listed in the preceeding post were, at least to some measure, motivated by the desire “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965) as a mentioned above. Thus it wasn’t nearly as high a priority to maintain the traditional prayers as to have a liturgy which wouldn’t offend protestants as much. I don’t think that it is a good thing to have a liturgy which doesn’t offend protestants. That probably means that most of what is specifically Catholic in the Liturgy has been gutted.

It isn’t a conspiracy theory to say that this was a motivation of Bugnini and the council. I’m not convinced of the conspiracy theories, nor have I seen any conclusive evidence that Bugnini was a Mason. With that said, it isn’t necesary for him to be a mason. Archbishop Bugnini thought that the Mass was a place for Ecumenism. I think the Mass is the place for Catholicism. Those are two different approaches.

See, I’ve a little more trouble with that, even. I don’t think Buggsy thought the Mass was a place for ecumenism, not if you mean, “watering down essential truth so it doesn’t offend.” I think they wanted something leaner, simpler, more spare (the word “elegant” comes to mind, but I won’t use it, though I think there is a profound beauty in simple things). I don’t think doctrine was stripped away, I think words were. Now, because Protestant services are, almost and very nearly by definition, simpler and more spare, does that mean that a Catholic Mass that is simpler and more spare has become “protestantized?” I don’t think so. The austerity of Mass at the Carmelite foundation where I was rec. into the Church is hardly protestant.

 

[totustuusmaria]

JKirkLVNV:

See, I’ve a little more trouble with that, even. I don’t think Buggsy thought the Mass was a place for ecumenism, not if you mean, “watering down essential truth so it doesn’t offend.” I think they wanted something leaner, simpler, more spare (the word “elegant” comes to mind, but I won’t use it, though I think there is a profound beauty in simple things). I don’t think doctrine was stripped away, I think words were. Now, because Protestant services are, almost and very nearly by definition, simpler and more spare, does that mean that a Catholic Mass that is simpler and more spare has become “protestantized?” I don’t think so. The austerity of Mass at the Carmelite foundation where I was rec. into the Church is hardly protestant.

That’s fine that you have a little trouble with that. I’ll grant you that that was a motivation of the commission. I’ll also grant you that simplicity can be very beautiful (just look at God! He’s one!). But, I don’t think it was the sole or even the primary motivation of the commission. I don’t think it’s the primary motivation of the commission because the commission also added parts and options. The commission, recognizing the important role Scripture should play, added a third reading to Sunday. It offered the Psalm Response an alternative to the Gradual. It included the “prayers of the faithful” and the “sign of peace,” it mandated a homily for Sunday masses, it added words and phrases to several prayers, it added the “memorial acclamation,” etc. As far as choices go, it greatly complicated the liturgy as a whole by offering choice after choice after choice. There is a great simplicity in universality.

I agree that they wished to eliminate rules to follow the percieved letter of the council in seeking: “noble simplicity.” I don’t think they achieved very much nobility in their modifications, some of which seem haphazard, but I’ll grant you that they did manage to simplify the liturgy to a great degree. I do not think it an accident, however, that the places where they simplified the liturgy were the places where protestants would have had difficulty with the liturgy. I think that this was their attempt to eliminate even the shadow of a stumbling block. But the problem is that if they eliminate even the shadow of a stumbling block, like Bugnini said, they allow for people who do not believe the Catholic Truths to attend the liturgy and even convert. Of course, we can’t be happy if someone converts but keeps his old theology. We don’t want to trick people into the Church, we want people to genuinely embrace the Church and all She teaches.

About noble simplicity: I think noble simplicity really means that everything which is included makes an organic whole and adds to the unity of the thing. I’ll illustrate this by pointing to archetecture. It is “noble simplicity” to have decorations and sacred items which add to the whole impression of the Church as the house of God and the temple in which the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered. It is not noble simplicity to just have devotional things and statues every which way which detract rather than add to the primary purpose of the mass.

I think simplicity is in an analogous sense as to how God is simple: when you draw back and look at it it makes an integral union, but when you get closer it’s more complicated. Thus, in archetecture, simplicity doesn’t mean a box or circular Church, since this symbolizes nothing and adds nothing to the Liturgy, simplicity would more likely mean a cross shaped Church. It is in a sense more simple to have 12 pillars with the intention of them symbolizing the apostles who are pillars of the Church than it is to have another number of pillars which means nothing.

Nobility implies beauty. I think the text of the Novus Ordo (and especially the ICEL translation of it, but also the text in general) has some strengths, but generally is much weaker than the text of mass which it replaced.

I would mind seeing some things allowed from the Novus Ordo, but, as a whole, I don’t think the Novus Ordo even achieves “noble simplicity.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

totustuusmaria:

That’s fine that you have a little trouble with that. I’ll grant you that that was a motivation of the commission. I’ll also grant you that simplicity can be very beautiful (just look at God! He’s one!). But, I don’t think it was the sole or even the primary motivation of the commission. I don’t think it’s the primary motivation of the commission because the commission also added parts and options. The commission, recognizing the important role Scripture should play, added a third reading to Sunday. It offered the Psalm Response an alternative to the Gradual. It included the “prayers of the faithful” and the “sign of peace,” it mandated a homily for Sunday masses, it added words and phrases to several prayers, it added the “memorial acclamation,” etc. As far as choices go, it greatly complicated the liturgy as a whole by offering choice after choice after choice. There is a great simplicity in universality.

I agree that they wished to eliminate rules to follow the percieved letter of the council in seeking: “noble simplicity.” I don’t think they achieved very much nobility in their modifications, some of which seem haphazard, but I’ll grant you that they did manage to simplify the liturgy to a great degree. I do not think it an accident, however, that the places where they simplified the liturgy were the places where protestants would have had difficulty with the liturgy. I think that this was their attempt to eliminate even the shadow of a stumbling block. But the problem is that if they eliminate even the shadow of a stumbling block, like Bugnini said, they allow for people who do not believe the Catholic Truths to attend the liturgy and even convert. Of course, we can’t be happy if someone converts but keeps his old theology. We don’t want to trick people into the Church, we want people to genuinely embrace the Church and all She teaches.

About noble simplicity: I think noble simplicity really means that everything which is included makes an organic whole and adds to the unity of the thing. I’ll illustrate this by pointing to archetecture. It is “noble simplicity” to have decorations and sacred items which add to the whole impression of the Church as the house of God and the temple in which the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered. It is not noble simplicity to just have devotional things and statues every which way which detract rather than add to the primary purpose of the mass.

I think simplicity is in an analogous sense as to how God is simple: when you draw back and look at it it makes an integral union, but when you get closer it’s more complicated. Thus, in archetecture, simplicity doesn’t mean a box or circular Church, since this symbolizes nothing and adds nothing to the Liturgy, simplicity would more likely mean a cross shaped Church. It is in a sense more simple to have 12 pillars with the intention of them symbolizing the apostles who are pillars of the Church than it is to have another number of pillars which means nothing.

Nobility implies beauty. I think the text of the Novus Ordo (and especially the ICEL translation of it, but also the text in general) has some strengths, but generally is much weaker than the text of mass which it replaced.

I would mind seeing some things allowed from the Novus Ordo, but, as a whole, I don’t think the Novus Ordo even achieves “noble simplicity.”

I haven’t time to answer this in depth, as my track break ends and I’m back teaching, BUT…when I was rec. into the Church, I promised that I believed ALL that the Holy Catholic Church taught as being revealed of God. All I’d been exposed to in terms of liturgy was the Pauline Mass and Benediction (I’ve since been to a TLM Mass celebrated by the SSPX… I don’t recommend it), yet I understood that what I was doing would set my Puritan and Baptist ancestors spinning in their graves. I see nothing in the Pauline Mass that contradicts or conceals or glosses over any truth that you believe is better represented in the TLM. If there is a problem in Catholics not adhering to the Truth of the Church, that is a problem with catechesis, not liturgy, though abuses in the celebration of the Pauline Mass cannot be tolerated either.