The difficulties we have with the NO Mass

[maurin]

He is an alter Christus; who said he wasn’t? Not Vatican II…

Because he is in persona Christi capitis, it stands to reason logically that the faithful are gathered together in persona Christi (mystici) corporis – that is, the faithful are gathered together as the Church herself, which is why the Creed is “I believe” – and as the head presides over the body, so the priest presides over the assembled faithful at Mass (assuming there are faithful at Mass).

that’s right, he’s the presider. I forgot.

This is not the sort of comment that is fruitful in this discussion. I wonder, maurin, if you remember the civil conversations you and I have had in the past on this forum. Please return the kindness and continue in charity here.

actually, it’s the sort of comment that needs to be said, because this “dressing up” is exactly what’s happening. And it fools noone.

I don’t intend to be non-civil, japhy, so I will apologize. But it seems that there is a lot of “expelling of saliva into the air” and assurances that we needn’t worry, “it’s only rain” on this forum. It isn’t charitable to call spit rain when it lands on the heads of the unwary.

I understand, japhy, that you have devoted a lot of time and energy professionally, according to your signature, in reigning in the excesses of the “spirit” of Vatican II, and in the Liturgy. But it is the New Liturgy itself which opens the door to these same excesses–they are the ‘logical’ ends to the butchering of the Roman Missal, it’s Canon and Rubrics.

It is, at the end of the day, the reason and cause of its own excesses.

 

[maurin]

Doesn’t seem to be at odds with the teaching of the Catechism of Trent to me…

You’re right, AJV. I apologize. It is well documented that in the centuries following Trent laymen handed out the Blessed Sacrament into the hands of the faithful.

 

[PaulinVA]

yeah, I’m tired of asking the same question without getting a response–just bull-dozed with false indignation.

what are the conservatives trying to conserve?

maurin, if I was actually indignant (which I am not) it is extremely uncharitable on your part to characterize it as “false” indignation. How the heck would you know if my indignation was false or not? People can actually have pure motives in attempting discourse here, unlike others who have an agenda to peddle in every post.

If I told you that the conservatives were trying to conserve the faith as they were taught, what would your response be?

 

[AJV]

You’re right, AJV. I apologize. It is well documented that in the centuries following Trent laymen handed out the Blessed Sacrament into the hands of the faithful.

Which was not the point under discussion, maurin. If one wants to make the point about that, then by all means, go right ahead. The problem comes when people try to raise objections to things that are not there. It’s one thing to claim that practice in X parish or group of parishes or country or whatever, diminishes the role of the ordained in favour of the laity. One can even go ahead and claim that the current practice of e.g. laity distributing Communion favours that. It’s quite another to claim to be scholarly and theologically investigative, and half-quote Vatican documents in an effort to back that up.

What is the other problem of today? It is that things like laity in the sanctuary, lack of reverence, and so forth in the name of “participation”, or justified in the name of the fact that the priest is a “presider” has so terrorized people that the pendulum has swung the other way, to a minimalist understanding, that recoils if one mentions the role of the congregation in the liturgy, or the idea of the priest ‘persona Christi capitis’ presiding over a congregation. These are orthodox concepts understood correctly and do not stand in opposition to an understanding of the role of the priest as the immolator in the liturgy. They are just made to.

 

[japhy]

that’s right, he’s the presider. I forgot.

One of the things a priest does is preside. He does it in the EF and the OF, and in any liturgical Rite of the Church. A priest is not just a presider. I know this, I know you know this. But other people don’t, and your tone here doesn’t further the catechesis of those people…

I don’t intend to be non-civil, japhy, so I will apologize.

If you apologize and keep on doing it, I’ll keep forgiving you for it, but eventually you should ask if you mean to apologize.

you have devoted a lot of time and energy professionally, according to your signature, in reigning in the excesses of the “spirit” of Vatican II, and in the Liturgy.

I certainly didn’t expect to see you put quotes around the word “spirit”. I would’ve thought you’re of the mind that “the so-called spirit of Vatican II” is truly its spirit. But perhaps you’re just quoting the word in imitation of those of us who quote it to differentiate the authentic Council from the sham put forth by people who have never read the documents (or who have read them as if they were the first things the Church had ever written).

it is the New Liturgy itself which opens the door to these same excesses

I agree with you, to some extent. The present English Missal has numerous occasions of “the priest says these or similar words.” It has a plethora of options (where options were never needed before). It has a lot of innovations that I don’t see the need for.

But there will be a reckoning – sooner, I hope, rather than later – of what the Consilium was supposed to do (implement Sac. Conc.) and what they did. There was no need for a three-form Penitential Act. There was no need to replace the Penitential Act with the Asperges (which took place before the proper Mass began). There was no need to cut-n-paste new collects. That’s not what the Constitution said to do.

The Consilium screwed up. Yes, it’s true. Ratzinger said as much in Milestones (which I’ve posted here before). And partly because of them, and partly because of a loud heterodox group of people that continues to obfuscate (and outright lie) about the Council’s documents, much of the Church’s life is a shambles right now, liturgy foremost.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Paul,

I thought I had edited Claire’s quote to: I’m saddened that there are members of the SSPX who say the NO Mass…[is] often/usually not valid.

I’m still a novice with computers–my edit didn’t quite come out correctly. My response was meant to be to only those parts of Claire’s post specifically.

My understanding of the Society’s position is that the NO Mass, especially the EP’s butchering of the Church’s lex orandi, is not invalid. Offensive to the Cult of God and inebriating for the cult of man, but not invalid. More protestant than Catholic in its orientation, but not invalid.

I’m so glad to hear that. I’ve spoken to people who only attend the TLM and, if that’s not available, won’t attend the NO. I said,“but it’s the same sacrifice and sacrament” and they answered, “no.” Maybe they weren’t members of the SSPX but just went to mass there.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

For anyone interested, here is Father Nichols’ reply.

catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000435b.shtml

Thanks, I found it helpful. I wonder if she later pursued the discussion with him.

 

[maurin]

One of the things a priest does is preside. He does it in the EF and the OF, and in any liturgical Rite of the Church. A priest is not just a presider. I know this, I know you know this. But other people don’t, and your tone here doesn’t further the catechesis of those people…

Lord save us from false indignation. Should I repeat again: it’s the emphasis which has changed. Hear, once more: it’s the emphasis which has changed in the NO. We don’t have auditorium like atmospheres in the NO, before, during and after Mass because of the same emphases as in the Holy Mass.

If you apologize and keep on doing it, I’ll keep forgiving you for it, but eventually you should ask if you mean to apologize.

for causing hurt feelings? absolutely. Never my intention to cause hurt. Apologize for my sincere beliefs? never. But I don’t shy away from admitting, like Ralph Kramden, sometimes I have a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig mouth. It’s good to remind each of this, japhy.

I certainly didn’t expect to see you put quotes around the word “spirit”. I would’ve thought you’re of the mind that “the so-called spirit of Vatican II” is truly its spirit. But perhaps you’re just quoting the word in imitation of those of us who quote it to differentiate the authentic Council from the sham put forth by people who have never read the documents (or who have read them as if they were the first things the Church had ever written).

We accept the Council as a valid Council. We know that the majority of her documents can, and one day will, be interpreted and implemented Traditionally. There are some teachings that require clarification. A couple of others need to be changed. The Catholic Church is the one and the same entity as the The Church of Jesus Christ…

Don’t be surprised japhy. Valid authority legitimately exercising it’s authority is all we all want. I should note also, that although your tone is not helpful here, if you mean to apologize, I forgive you (see underlined text above).

I agree with you, to some extent. The present English Missal has numerous occasions of “the priest says these or similar words.” It has a plethora of options (where options were never needed before). It has a lot of innovations that I don’t see the need for.

But there will be a reckoning – sooner, I hope, rather than later – of what the Consilium was supposed to do (implement Sac. Conc.) and what they did. There was no need for a three-form Penitential Act. There was no need to replace the Penitential Act with the Asperges (which took place before the proper Mass began). There was no need to cut-n-paste new collects. That’s not what the Constitution said to do.

The Consilium screwed up. Yes, it’s true. Ratzinger said as much in Milestones (which I’ve posted here before). And partly because of them, and partly because of a loud heterodox group of people that continues to obfuscate (and outright lie) about the Council’s documents, much of the Church’s life is a shambles right now, liturgy foremost.

Actually there was NO need for the NO Liturgy at all. The Council didn’t ask for it.

 

[japhy]

… it’s the emphasis which has changed in the NO. We don’t have auditorium like atmospheres in the NO, before, during and after Mass because of the same emphases as in the Holy Mass.

I know what you mean. But there are places which celebrate the OF in much the same way they celebrate the EF. (Like Detroit’s Assumption Grotto.) There is no change in atmosphere. Yes, things are different, but not the atmosphere.

It’s hard to come by, I admit, due to the formation of our priests and laity over the past few decades… formation not grounded in the Council’s documents, sadly.

for causing hurt feelings? absolutely. Never my intention to cause hurt. Apologize for my sincere beliefs? never.

I asked you to apologize for a lack of civility in the discussion, not for your sincere beliefs.

We accept the Council as a valid Council. … The Catholic Church is the one and the same entity as the The Church of Jesus Christ.

Right. The Church has spent the last 40+ years trying to clean up the “subsitit” fiasco. The clarifications in recent documents have chagrined those who thought the “subsitit” declaration changed the ontological identity of the Church of Jesus Christ with the Catholic Church. (But, in fairness, the Council’s documents repeatedly affirmed that Christ’s Church is governed by the bishops and ultimately by the Roman Pontiff, it has certain sacraments, etc. The documents describe the Catholic Church as directly willed and ordained by Christ himself.)

I should note also, that although your tone is not helpful here, if you mean to apologize, I forgive you (see underlined text above).

I do apologize; the implication I made about your view of the Council was due to ignorance. It’s clear from the text of yours above (“a valid Council”) that you do distinguish between the actual spirit of the Council and the “spirit” which dissenters and heretics falsely imbue it with; I wasn’t sure about that before. I am now.

Actually there was NO need for the NO Liturgy at all. The Council didn’t ask for it.

You’re right. The Council did not call for a “new order of the Mass.” It called for the reform of the order of the Mass. I am sad that so much changed.

I’m curious (and this is besides the point) just how the SSPX (and other) would react if the principles for reforming the liturgy from Sac. Conc. were applied anew – conservatively and traditionally (and competently!), along the lines spoken of in Dom. Alcuin Reid’s “The Organic Development of the Liturgy” – by the Church to the Extraordinary Form.

 

[maurin]

So, look at that, japhy!!! we talk a little and we discover–we’re both human!! good to know, right?

I know what you mean. But there are places which celebrate the OF in much the same way they celebrate the EF. (Like Detroit’s Assumption Grotto.) There is no change in atmosphere. Yes, things are different, but not the atmosphere.

It’s hard to come by, I admit, due to the formation of our priests and laity over the past few decades… formation not grounded in the Council’s documents, sadly.

true, but in the first paragraph you are expressing the exception–which I hope you can admit is far and few in between, and not the rule in the NO Parishes.

I asked you to apologize for a lack of civility in the discussion, not for your sincere beliefs.

I’m not so sure, as you are, that I have been uncivil. For instance, I haven’t insinuated any dishonesty on your part.

Right. The Church has spent the last 40+ years trying to clean up the “subsitit” fiasco. The clarifications in recent documents have chagrined those who thought the “subsitit” declaration changed the ontological identity of the Church of Jesus Christ with the Catholic Church. (But, in fairness, the Council’s documents repeatedly affirmed that Christ’s Church is governed by the bishops and ultimately by the Roman Pontiff, it has certain sacraments, etc. The documents describe the Catholic Church as directly willed and ordained by Christ himself.)

It’s easy to clean up the fiasco. Change subsistit back to is. There, now no confusion.

I do apologize; the implication I made about your view of the Council was due to ignorance. It’s clear from the text of yours above (“a valid Council”) that you do distinguish between the actual spirit of the Council and the “spirit” which dissenters and heretics falsely imbue it with; I wasn’t sure about that before. I am now.

don’t worry about it. At the end of the day I know I’m a peasant–or at least a bull-in-a-china-shop.

You’re right. The Council did not call for a “new order of the Mass.” It called for the reform of the order of the Mass. I am sad that so much changed.

I’m curious (and this is besides the point) just how the SSPX (and other) would react if the principles for reforming the liturgy from Sac. Conc. were applied anew – conservatively and traditionally (and competently!), along the lines spoken of in Dom. Alcuin Reid’s “The Organic Development of the Liturgy” – by the Church to the Extraordinary Form.

I can’t answer for the SSPX or for others, but I will remind you that all anyone is looking for is the legitimate exercising of authority by our legitimate authority. We accept the '62 Missal as such.

 

[Jacafamala]

I thought that many of Fr. Nichol’s reply made a lot of sense theoretically, but in reality the sacrifice is still blurred by the celebration going on at the new Mass. The average Joe and Mary NO Catholic don’t know they’re at Calvary. Do they? In all fairness, that’s partly because of poor catechesis, but probably it’s primarily because of the changes to the Mass.

A really good read, Maurin. Thanks.

 

[maurin]

Which was not the point under discussion, maurin. If one wants to make the point about that, then by all means, go right ahead. The problem comes when people try to raise objections to things that are not there. It’s one thing to claim that practice in X parish or group of parishes or country or whatever, diminishes the role of the ordained in favour of the laity. One can even go ahead and claim that the current practice of e.g. laity distributing Communion favours that. It’s quite another to claim to be scholarly and theologically investigative, and half-quote Vatican documents in an effort to back that up.

What is the other problem of today? It is that things like laity in the sanctuary, lack of reverence, and so forth in the name of “participation”, or justified in the name of the fact that the priest is a “presider” has so terrorized people that the pendulum has swung the other way, to a minimalist understanding, that recoils if one mentions the role of the congregation in the liturgy, or the idea of the priest ‘persona Christi capitis’ presiding over a congregation. These are orthodox concepts understood correctly and do not stand in opposition to an understanding of the role of the priest as the immolator in the liturgy. They are just made to.

sorry, I missed this before… I think you may have missed my point.

 

[japhy]

sorry, I missed this before… I think you may have missed my point.

If you think he missed your point, why not clarify it for him (and the rest of us)?

maurin, you said: “You’re right, AJV. I apologize. It is well documented that in the centuries following Trent laymen handed out the Blessed Sacrament into the hands of the faithful.”

How does that statement help the conversation at all? I think I know why you brought the issue of Communion in the hand up, but everyone here knows the Council never mentioned such a thing. Bringing it up in that manner (with a patently silly and inflammatory remark) is liable to irritate people into not wanting to continue discussing this with you.

 

[maurin]

If you think he missed your point, why not clarify it for him (and the rest of us)?

maurin, you said: “You’re right, AJV. I apologize. It is well documented that in the centuries following Trent laymen handed out the Blessed Sacrament into the hands of the faithful.”

How does that statement help the conversation at all? I think I know why you brought the issue of Communion in the hand up, but everyone here knows the Council never mentioned such a thing. Bringing it up in that manner (with a patently silly and inflammatory remark) is liable to irritate people into not wanting to continue discussing this with you.

Lord, save us from false indignity. If you think you know why I brought the issue of CITH up, why not clarify it for me (and the rest)?

It is you, I dare say, japhy, who turns the conversation inflammatory. On the one hand, I admit and am relieved, you seem to agree with the problems, and even lament them. On the other, you deny the source of the problems as problems, and get quite flustered when someone else attempts to. You may not (alright, it’s obvious that you definitely don’t) agree with me, japhy, but it seems you are quite guilty of that which you accuse me. Inflammatory? Indeed. Calm down, take a deep breath. Maybe have a cup of tea. I don’t like tea, I prefer coffee.

My position is quite clear japhy, but I’ll put it another way: for the first time since the arian heresy we have much of the Church behaving, and to a certain extent believing in ways and manners not quite Catholic. And it doesn’t shock people anymore. Well maybe it’s time someone gets shocked, japh. His Holiness Paul VI wrote that the Faithful should continue receiving Communion in the Traditional manner. In disobedience many Bishops allowed it in their Diocese anyway. Then, the disobedience becomes the norm. I’m not sure which is more shocking, the disobedience of those Bishops, to the legitimate authority, or the fact that the legitimate authority caved in to those disobedients.

 

[japhy]

If you think you know why I brought the issue of CITH up, why not clarify it for me (and the rest)?

I don’t think I’m being inflammatory. But you seem to be answering objections by bringing up other issues. (It reminds me, to be frank, of Protestant debaters who simply fire question after question at a Catholic apologist, not heeding his questions and not acknowledging his answers: “What about all this Mary business? … Well, what about Purgatory? … Why do you pray to statues? … Why do you worship bread?”) I can only imagine the indignation you might feel at being compared to a Protestant, but it is the first comparison that popped into my mind. For example, you did not address at all my persona-capitis-persona-corporis statement. I apologize for being prideful, but I thought that was a rather decent argument that warranted at least an explicit flat-out rejection from you.

I think you brought it up because you think Vatican II’s documents themselves produced the right environment for it.

For myself, I think the council was held a couple decades too late. The 1960’s were a terrible time to introduce change. The lure of false freedom was in the air – sexual freedom, freedom from authority, freedom from consequences, freedom from “right and wrong”, etc. – and the result was that “change” meant, for so many people, “radical change”: change at the core, at the root, a chance to break with the “old” ways and start something new.

Some of those people – a lot, I guess! – were priests and bishops in the Church. They incited disobedience, sometimes enforcing heteropraxy and heterodoxy. I’d expect they thought their license for it came from Vatican II. (Oh, and a lot of them were teachers in seminaries.)

The scope of it, how widespread it became, troubles me deeply. One might say: these are the bishops who voted on the documents, shouldn’t they know how to implement them? It’s frightening to think that some of them did believe they were implementing them properly.

I am concerned, as you are. Your comparison of these days with the Arian heresy is a scary one. I’ve written about disobedience-becomes-norm tactic on these boards before, regarding Communion in the hand and Communion under both species. I try to educate people on the matter. I’m shocked and disgusted by the disobedience. But Vatican II didn’t advocate disobedience to the Magisterium.

People who receive in the hand need to be taught how it came about, and they need to know what Pope Paul VI said in Memoriale Domini, and they need to be aware why some bishops around the world are beginning to discontinue the indulted practice.

Disobedience is a hard habit to break. We’ve been doing it for I don’t know how many years.

I trust that the faithful leaders of the Church will address and correct these issues. I don’t know how pastoral or non-pastoral those corrections will be – you know how the Church has tended to request that things get done in the past 40 years – but I trust them to come. While I wait, I educate myself and others.

 

[pnewton]

yeah, I’m tired of asking the same question without getting a response–just bull-dozed with false indignation.

what are the conservatives trying to conserve?

Tradition. Unfortunately if we call ourselves traditionalists that has a different meaning here.

 

[maurin]

Tradition. Unfortunately if we call ourselves traditionalists that has a different meaning here.

you’re right it does…which Traditions are you preserving, pnewton? the 40 years of confusion or the almost 2 millenia of knowing who we are? That’s all I’m trying figure out, all I’m asking for an answer to.

 

[maurin]

I don’t think I’m being inflammatory. But you seem to be answering objections by bringing up other issues. (It reminds me, to be frank, of Protestant debaters…).

I don’t think I am either. I think you’re making me out that way. And I’m sure it seems to you that I am answering objections by bringing up other issues, but they are all interconnected, to be, if you don’t mind, frank.

The pink elephant in the room is the “spirit” of the Council. Noone is addressing it on y’all’s end, nor distinguishing between it and the Church’s Traditional Teachings and and the legitimate, what is the correct word? growth of those teachings, according to “the present circumstances” “modern man” “finds himself in.”

Just checking in from work, must log off, but I will respond to the rest of your post later, japhy. I’m not positive, but I don’t think we’re too far apart in thought. We’re not right next to each other, but we’re not all that far away.

 

[japhy]

The pink elephant in the room is the “spirit” of the Council. Noone is addressing it on y’all’s end…

I addressed it, I think, in my previous post. The so-called “spirit” is, in my estimation, the “sense of the 60’s”, if you know what I mean. It’s the freewheeling attitude of the 1960’s applied to the Church.

… nor distinguishing between it and the Church’s Traditional Teachings and and the legitimate, what is the correct word? growth of those teachings, according to “the present circumstances” “modern man” “finds himself in.”

I do distinguish between the usurper “spirit” and the Church’s Tradition and its organic development. But Pope John XXIII didn’t really intend on “developing” doctrine at the Council, I thought:
The manner in which sacred doctrine is spread, this having been established, it becomes clear how much is expected from the Council in regard to doctrine. That is, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences, wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will. {decent premise}

…

The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. {faulty assumption, I guess}

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
I’m sure you’ve read that before. I just wanted to bring it up for context. I believe John XXIII meant what he said. The Council, then, must must MUST be received and interpreted through that lens.

 

[PaulinVA]

you’re right it does…which Traditions are you preserving, pnewton? the 40 years of confusion or the almost 2 millenia of knowing who we are? That’s all I’m trying figure out, all I’m asking for an answer to.

Good luck, pnewton. This is a rhetorical question that maurin uses as a bludgeon when someone wants to call themselves something that he disapproves of.

I’m going to start using “orthodox” myself, and see if I have any better luck with that.