The Novus Ordo "without abuses".

[BobP123]

Be careful. Before you say that these “abuses” were not what the Council “intended” " like many conservatives do, consider this: the Popes up to and including the current Pope have all APPROVED and used these “abuses. in their Masses. So they are not “abuses”, but “legal” , legitimate” and part of the “fruit” of the “renewal”, that are constantly praised by Rome.
So, you would be in the uncomfortable position of saying that Rome has been violating VII for 40 years.
Well, that’s all well and good, but many conservatives claim, in addition, that VII was an “infallible” Council–which makes the Popes approving and legislating against the mandates of an infallible Ecumenical Council

Definitely something to consider.

 

[stmaria]

Sure;2501168]Yes, the subsequent documents expand the use of the vernacular. Perhaps, because it was found to be effective. frequently the Church builds upon previous statements and expands or adapts certain teachings. In this case, they said, “**okay, the vernacular seems to be working well and desired so not we give permission to do the rest of the Mass in the vernacular.” **There is no secret conspiracy, just an adaptation of the original ideas put forth in SC.

How can you say the vernacular was found to be effective? The Novus Ordo was presented for the **first time in Oct.1967 **to the Synod of Bishops. The documents I have sited were issued before 1967. There was no vernacular Mass before 1967

 

[stmaria]

ncjohn;2500623]I’m not at all sure what point you’re trying to make here. From what I read here, you are agreeing with what I said earlier–and contradicting what you said earlier–that a new liturgy was always the intent rather than modifying the TLM. Not for some “happy clappy” reason, as you seem to be trying to imply here, but to involve the people in the liturgy as was always intended and which the TLM had gotten away from. As you have also quoted, the utmost care was to be taken to maintain the sacrality of the liturgy and tradition.

The Council Fathers believed that the changes in the Mass would be minor changes. Nothing radical. The Mass would still be in Latin except for the Gospel, Epistle and a few readings and yes there would be some participation of the laity.
It was the reformers led by Annibale Bubnini that wanted radical changes but they knew that such a Mass would not be approved by the Council Fathers. The reformers put ambigious clauses in the Constitution that would allow them to implement the changes they wanted. These changes would be made after the Council was over and the Fathers had all gone home and that is exactly what happened.
The Novus Ordo had been formed before the Council even began. The Constitution was merely for show.

** "Three weeks after the Council began **and more than one year before the *Constitution on the Liturgy *was even voted on, Bishop William Dushak gave the following statement at the Council “ “My idea is to introduce an ecumenical Mass, stripped wherever possible of historical accretions, one that is based on the essence of the Holy Sacrifice, one that is deeply rooted in Holy Scripture. By this I mean that it should contain all the essential elements of the Last Supper, using language and gestures that are understandable…It would be a kind of celebration of the Mass which all members of a community…can readily understand without involved explanations…**the entire Mass, including the Canon, should be said aloud in the vernacular and facing the people….this ecumenical Mass… is to be written by liturgical scholars of all faiths in order to provide a basis of common worship by all Christians” **When asked if his proposal originated with the people whom he served he stated, “ No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it” The Rhine flows into the Tiber]

It is clear that the New Mass was written by Cardinal Lecaro, Archibishop Felici, Annibale Bugnini,and a host of Progressive Theologians before the Council began.

 

[AJV]

It is clear that the New Mass was written by Cardinal Lecaro, Archibishop Felici, Annibale Bugnini,and a host of Progressive Theologians before the Council began.

Dont you think that is a bit improbable to establish that in the light of the memoirs of Bugnini and Vagaggini (who is credited, rightly or wrongly, with EP III and IV especially) IIRC, Vagaginni’s plan for the reform of the Canon was published only in 1966.

 

[ncjohn]

Be careful. Before you say that these “abuses” were not what the Council “intended” " like many conservatives do, consider this: the Popes up to and including the current Pope have all APPROVED and used these “abuses. in their Masses. So they are not “abuses”, but “legal” , legitimate” and part of the “fruit” of the “renewal”, that are constantly praised by Rome.
So, you would be in the uncomfortable position of saying that Rome has been violating VII for 40 years.
Well, that’s all well and good, but many conservatives claim, in addition, that VII was an “infallible” Council–which makes the Popes approving and legislating against the mandates of an infallible Ecumenical Council

There are at least two major problems with your arguments here. First, you have mixed things that actually are abuses, and certainly not intentions of either Vatican II or the current Popes, in with things that have been approved, and then combined them with things that are local jurisdictional matters.

And none of the non-abuse items you mention are universal norms but are approved for use if the local jurisdiction finds them appropriate. While you may not personally like them, and “conservatives” may not consider them appropriate, and in many cases I would agree, the Church does not agree that those things are abuses.

The second problem, which is much more major, is the contention that Popes are legislating against “mandates of an infallible Ecumenical Council”. The form of the liturgy, outside of the need to properly include the “required” parts, is strictly a disciplinary matter and has nothing whatsoever to do with infallibility. The Pope is free to change it at will, though it can quite rightly be argued that doing so without great consideration would not be prudent.

While the Council unquestionably did not foresee all of the specific changes, they unquestionably *did *intend for a changed liturgy, which would develop through coordination and consultation with the Bishops. They further provided for the creation of the commission to determine what the actual changes and implementation would be.

You may not like all the changes–or any of the changes for that matter–but the fact that the implementation documents were ratified, and that the Popes have supported them, makes them valid. So taking a position that they are improper, much less “abuses” is to go against the will of the Church and put one’s self above the authority of the Pope.

Will things swing back? More than likely. Many of those things that actually were abuses were addressed in Redemptionis Sacramentum. Translation problems are being addressed with new translations–which will please some while discomfiting others–due out soon. While we continue to hear about polka Masses and Barney Masses, they seem to be primarily old accounts that have gained legendary status but that are seldom if ever actually occuring now. And despite the seeming belief that there is no such thing as a “reverent” Pauline Mass, we continue to hear from many posters, including me, that they do indeed have reverent Pauline Masses.

Should we go after the legitimate abuses? Of course we should. But the tarring of the entire Pauline Mass with the abuses is not legitimate. As I’ve said often, rejoice in your ability to worship at the TLM if you wish, and I will rejoice with you. But please, can’t we stop feeling a need to elevate our individual preferences by feeling a need to tear down the legitimate preferences of others? The Church has consistently said that the different forms are equal in dignity. I think it’s time we all took that to heart.

Peace,

 

[Brendan]

The Council Fathers believed that the changes in the Mass would be minor changes. Nothing radical. The Mass would still be in Latin except for the Gospel, Epistle and a few readings and yes there would be some participation of the laity.

Clear proof of this is the fact that Archbishop Levfebre, who founded the SSPX, voted IN FAVOR of Sacrosanctum Concillium.

And both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have described exactly what “full, conscience and active” participation meant to the Council Fathers.

In meant that the faithful listen attentively to the Readings, Gospel and Homily, and to perform an internal sacrifice of themselves at the same time as the priest is offering Christ as a Sacrifice. Both are to be done in silence ( See Pope Benedict’s book, 'The Spirit of the Liturgy" - he wrote a whole chapter in the subject)

 

[Sure]

So then would you say the ICEL has done a great job through its misinterpretations and mistranslations? As long as people like hearing anything in their normal conversational language, they’ll like whatever the ICEL approves? Never mind that most have voted with their feet and no longer attend Mass.

What did I say that indicated that mistranslations are good???

Of course not, accurate translations are extremely important and we have not had very good ones. If the translations were well done, it would sound nothing like conversational english. The fact that people attend less now is unfortunate, but the myriad of causes should probably be explored in another thread.

 

[Sure]

Clear proof of this is the fact that Archbishop Levfebre, who founded the SSPX, voted IN FAVOR of Sacrosanctum Concillium.

And both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have described exactly what “full, conscience and active” participation meant to the Council Fathers.

In meant that the faithful listen attentively to the Readings, Gospel and Homily, and to perform an internal sacrifice of themselves at the same time as the priest is offering Christ as a Sacrifice. Both are to be done in silence ( See Pope Benedict’s book, 'The Spirit of the Liturgy" - he wrote a whole chapter in the subject)

This seems to indicate that there are parts where the people are to speak…

1. A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and “the common prayer,” and also, as local conditions maywarrant, in those parts which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid down in Article 36 of this Constitution.
   Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

Also, the way (well, at least the english translation) SC reads, it does not say everything should be in Latin except the Readings, Gospel and Homily. It says the vernacular is recommended, ESPECIALLY for the readings, gospel and homily.

(2) But
since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the
liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a
wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives
and in some prayers and chants.

Notice it doesn’t in any way discourage use aside from the readings, directives, etc., it only says that “especially” this should be in the vernacular.

Anyway, that’s how the english reads.

 

[Brendan]

This seems to indicate that there are parts where the people are to speak…

Yes, I never said hat the people do not have responses to give, but Pope Benedict’s point was that this should hot be confused with the “active particaption” the VII calls for.

Also, the way (well, at least the english translation) SC reads, it does not say everything should be in Latin except the Readings, Gospel and Homily. It says the vernacular is recommended, ESPECIALLY for the readings, gospel and homily.

I agree. B-XVI specificaloy said that a critical part of active participation is when the faithful listen attentively to the readings, gospel and the homily.

Not even +Lefvbre had an issue with that

 

[stmaria]

Dont you think that is a bit improbable to establish that in the light of the memoirs of Bugnini and Vagaggini (who is credited, rightly or wrongly, with EP III and IV especially) IIRC, Vagaginni’s plan for the reform of the Canon was published only in 1966.

So how do you explain Bishops Dushaks describing the *Novus Ordo *at the Council in 1962?
“My idea is to introduce an ecumenical Mass….one that is deeply rooted in Holy Scripture. By this I mean that it should contain all the essential elements of the Last Supper, using language and gestures that are understandable… …the entire Mass, including the Canon, should be said aloud in the vernacular and facing the people….this ecumenical Mass… is to be written by liturgical scholars of all faiths in order to provide a basis of common worship by all Christians”….Dushaks remarks were carried on page one of the New York Times on **November 6 1962 **The Rhine flows into the Tiber}

This was only three weeks after the Council began and five years before the Novus Ordo was shown to the Synod of Bishops for the first time.

 

[Sure]

So how do you explain Bishops Dushaks describing the *Novus Ordo *at the Council in 1962?
“My idea is to introduce an ecumenical Mass….one that is deeply rooted in Holy Scripture. By this I mean that it should contain all the essential elements of the Last Supper, using language and gestures that are understandable… …the entire Mass, including the Canon, should be said aloud in the vernacular and facing the people….this ecumenical Mass… is to be written by liturgical scholars of all faiths in order to provide a basis of common worship by all Christians”….Dushaks remarks were carried on page one of the New York Times on **November 6 1962 **The Rhine flows into the Tiber}

This was only three weeks after the Council began and five years before the Novus Ordo was shown to the Synod of Bishops for the first time.

Maybe this means that Bishop Dushaks wanted an ecumenical Mass in the vernacular. It’s not much of a deep dark conspiracy if it was on the front page of the New York Times.

 

[stmaria]

The *Constitution on the Liturgy *passed at Vatican by a vote of 2,147 for and 4 against. But what exactly did the Fathers believe that they were voting on?
They believed that they were voting on the Traditional Latin Mass where only the Gospel, Epistle and a few prayers would be said in the Vernacular. They believed that the Mass would have more Gospel readings, that a few prayers would be omitted and that Communion under both kinds would be permitted. There would be an increase of the laity in terms of participation with responses and they believed that Gregorian chant would be the sacred music of the liturgy.

The *Constitution *did not authorize the following:
Communion in the hand
Removal of the Tabernacle
Priest facing the people
The entire Mass said in the vernacular
Removal of the Canon and replacing it with nine Eucharistic prayers
Changing the words of Consecration
Eucharistic Ministers
Sign of Peace
Music with guitars, drums etc.

 

[Sure]

The *Constitution on the Liturgy *passed at Vatican by a vote of 2,147 for and 4 against. But what exactly did the Fathers believe that they were voting on?
They believed that they were voting on the Traditional Latin Mass where only the Gospel, Epistle and a few prayers would be said in the Vernacular. They believed that the Mass would have more Gospel readings, that a few prayers would be omitted and that Communion under both kinds would be permitted. There would be an increase of the laity in terms of participation with responses and they believed that Gregorian chant would be the sacred music of the liturgy.

The citation that you provided from SC does not say this. It says that the vernacular is recommended and especially for the readings and common prayers.

Here it is:

1. A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and “the common prayer,” and also, as local conditions maywarrant, in those parts which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid down in Article 36 of this Constitution.
   Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

It does not indicate that the vernacular should ONLY be used on readings and common prayer. It says especially. Big difference.

The *Constitution *did not authorize the following:
Communion in the hand
Removal of the Tabernacle
Priest facing the people
The entire Mass said in the vernacular
Removal of the Canon and replacing it with nine Eucharistic prayers
Changing the words of Consecration
Eucharistic Ministers(NOTE: extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion)
Sign of Peace
Music with guitars, drums etc.

The Constitution did not implement the bolded items. They were validly instituted under the authority of subsequent Popes.

As for the guitars and drums and changing the words of consecration, those are abuses and should be eliminated. They were never allowed.

 

[stmaria]

Could someone please tell me the heck this means? Many say that Novus Ordo, as we have it today in most places, is “not what the Council intended”, or the Novus Ordo “without abuses” would look like the Tridentine Mass. What??

.When people speak of abuses that were later approved, they are referring to communion in the hand ‘
In 1965 a group of French priests were already saying a form of the New Mass. One of the things that they were doing was communion in the hand.** At that time it was an abuse. It had not been approved.**

This problem was addressed by Pope Paul in Memoriale Domini -May 29, 1969
*Memoriale Domini *catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.
Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.
This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]
Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.”
Of course in typical Modernist fashion, one of ambiguity, Pope Paul denied communion in the hand as is sited above, but then in the next paragraph he** approves of **communion in the hand for those already doing it. This is why some say that an abuse was made licit.
“If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today’s often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the conferences the duty and function of judging particular circumstances, if any. They may make this judgment provided that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the minds of the faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed.”
Rome, May 29, 1969.
Benno Card. Gut Prefect A. Bugnini Secretary

 

[stmaria]

Clear proof of this is the fact that Archbishop Levfebre, who founded the SSPX, voted IN FAVOR of Sacrosanctum Concillium.

And both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have described exactly what “full, conscience and active” participation meant to the Council Fathers.

In meant that the faithful listen attentively to the Readings, Gospel and Homily, and to perform an internal sacrifice of themselves at the same time as the priest is offering Christ as a Sacrifice. Both are to be done in silence ( See Pope Benedict’s book, 'The Spirit of the Liturgy" - he wrote a whole chapter in the subject)

Excellent point! Archbishop Levfebre voted for the Constitution because he believed it would lead to only minor changes in the Mass.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is getting sidetracked. Please return to the original topic, or I will have to close the thread. Thank you.

 

[ncjohn]

The *Constitution on the Liturgy *passed at Vatican by a vote of 2,147 for and 4 against. But what exactly did the Fathers believe that they were voting on?
They believed that they were voting on the Traditional Latin Mass where only the Gospel, Epistle and a few prayers would be said in the Vernacular. They believed that the Mass would have more Gospel readings, that a few prayers would be omitted and that Communion under both kinds would be permitted. There would be an increase of the laity in terms of participation with responses and they believed that Gregorian chant would be the sacred music of the liturgy.

Archbishop Levfebre voted for the Constitution because he believed it would lead to only minor changes in the Mass.

All these expressed as fact, but without any documentation of the thought processes of the 2147 men who voted for the document, which says and authorizes far more than the couple things you mention. They must have all just been stupid or brainwashed, especially since you’re claiming that the “true intent” was published in the NY Tiimes before the Council even began. Gosh, that certainly wouldn’t have put them on their guard to watch carefully for what the documents might say.

And again, regardless of whether some other changes were part of the final package, SC specifically set up a commission to determine the extent and form of the changes and the implementation. And that commission produced its reports which were ratified and implemented.

How many times are we going to have to hear these same old tired arguments implying that the entire Council of Bishops is stupid and didn’t know what they were voting on? How many times are we going to hear the gripes that what the Pope ultimately provided, and subsequent Popes have upheld, isn’t good enough?

Is there a point to the griping to be made? Is there something constructive you are suggesting? Since the overwhelming majority of Catholics attend the Pauline Mass, and that is certainly not going to change dramatically any time in the near future, is there something to be gained here by the constant sniping at the liturgy that the Church proclaims to be its normative liturgy?

This bloodletting really needs to stop. PLEASE, for the sake of the Church, stop sowing this division among the faithful of the Body of Christ. If you don’t like the Pauline Mass, by all means attend the TLM. But just as those who prefer the TLM have asked to not be considered second class citizens, please, PLEASE afford us the same courtesy.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.