The Reasoning Behind the Novus Ordo?

[palmas85]

It is so very easy to take a person’s words out of context, such as USMC did above with Pope Paul VI’s document. Not having the book, and not being able to read it in context, this proves nothing at all, just because Pope Benedict purportedly said it.

In fact, he may have, and someone pulled his words from an address out of context and ran with it to justify their position. I agree that the Council per se did not state anything about the altar or the vernacular. **This came from “postconciliar instructions” … authorization by the Council itself to a Commission it set up to implement changes in the liturgy according to the spirit of the Council. Both are a lawful change, even though it was not officially spelled out in the Council Documents. ** In that sense, Benedict’s words are true.

This proves for an apologist ONLY that it was not in the actual documents; however, the Church has authority from the Council to enact the changes, which it subsequently did, making these two changes in the liturgy valid, not invalid. The apologist does not go to step two and adhere to the lawful prescription of the Commission, approved by Paul VI, but attempts to persuade the innocent that wolves perverted the Church simply because it is not found written in the original documents.

Again, it proves nothing other than the traditionists clearly have no basis for their charge that this is an abuse.

I am amused by the subtle ending quote you posted, for it seems you are making further accusations that are without merit or foundation, considering later documents and the Authority of the Magisterium.

What I would reccomed is actually reading the original Vatican II documents, then read the Post Concilar documents responsible for the actual changes. There are very subtle changes written in, differences in translation, subtle yet tremendous differences that in the hands of the Liturgical Experts responsible, enabled and laid the ground work for all sorts of radical changes…

I have long maintained that what actually happened after the Council was that a group of opportunists saw an opening through which they could take advantage of this golden opportunity which had been created by the Council and did so. They counted on the ignorance of most Catholics as to what actually transpired at the Council and on what used to be of great importance to Catholics, obedience, to further facilitate the changes they wanted put through. And yes, we believed that the changes had all been mandated by Rome because thats what we were told. We couldn’t in many cases understand why, but we accepted them through obedience. It was only later that many of use realized just how badly we had been duped and deceived.

Since few people knew what was actrually going on and since Rome moves so slowly it was the perfect time. Rome realized that things weren’t going right very early on, but as many have said, once the toothpaste was out of the tube you could not put it back.

Such a thing could not happen now in this era, but in the mid 60’s through early 70’s it was a totally different thing.

 

[Victorious]

The Canon of the Mass was considered untouchable, even by the Pope. When Pope Pius IX was asked to add the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass he replied: “What power do I have to touch the Canon? I am only the Pope.”

We have a priest who adds the name of St. Joseph all the time. And that’s just one of the minor amendments to the Mass that priests take it upon themselves to make around here all the time.

Whatever the Council intended, I think we can agree that it became an excuse for a counter-Catholic spirit to sweep the Church. Poor catechesis and basic disobedience, among other things, have cleared the way for it to do its damage. The “spirit of Vatican II” is a spirit of rebellion.

 

[Rykell]

Honestly, I haven’t the faintest idea where you folks are getting this notion about St. Joseph. This is in the latin mass:

In union with the whole Church we honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God. We honor Joseph, her husband, the apostles and martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, (James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude; we honor Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian) and all the saints. May their merits and prayers grant us your constant help and protection.
(Through Christ our Lord.)

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Text/Index/4/SubIndex/67/ContentIndex/22/Start/9

The Church does have authority to change the words in the Canon.

Why is it that the only ones who do the most griping are the handfuls of Traditionalists? Nobody is attacking you folks for your way of worship, so why do you feel it your solemn duty to berate those who are celebrating the lawful rite in the Church?

 

[AJV]

Honestly, I haven’t the faintest idea where you folks are getting this notion about St. Joseph. This is in the latin mass:

In union with the whole Church we honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God. We honor Joseph, her husband, the apostles and martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, (James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude; we honor Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian) and all the saints. May their merits and prayers grant us your constant help and protection.
(Through Christ our Lord.)

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Text/Index/4/SubIndex/67/ContentIndex/22/Start/9

The Church does have authority to change the words in the Canon.

Why is it that the only ones who do the most griping are the handfuls of Traditionalists? Nobody is attacking you folks for your way of worship, so why do you feel it your solemn duty to berate those who are celebrating the lawful rite in the Church?

Rykell, what the posters are referring to was the addition in 1962 to the Canon of the Mass by Pope John XXIII, of blessed memory. It was the first change in the Canon since at least, the codification of the missal by Pope St. Pius V.

While the change in itself is minor, many feel that it opened the way to further changing the Canon and the introduction of new Eucharistic Prayers as what was previously held untouchable (or so is said) was changed.

Your quote is from the EP I of the Mass: in the TLM the names of the additional saints are not optional neither is ‘through Christ our Lord’

IIRC, Fr. Mc Namarra at Zenit recently answered a question about adding St. Jospeh’s name to the other Eucharistic prayers where is usually given after the BVM ‘St. N.’.

I should add that St. Jospeh may be legitmately added in that place in EP II-IV if he is the patron of the that particular church or of the priests religious order (not sure about diocesan patrons or city patrons).

 

[TradyDaddy]

Quite true. It amazes me that so many people on both sides of the coin have forgotten the word obedience.

I’m not going to disagree with your statement. However, we have to understand that complete obedience on the part of the rank and file Catholic back in the 1960’s and 1970’s was the tool used by the modernist to advance their trojan horse agenda. My mom says that even though many many Catholics were shocked at the changes, they felt that they had to go along out of obedience. My oldest brother left the Mass to go to Vietnam in 69 and came back a few years later to a Circus. Now after this 40+ year experiment we have a mess and there are some great Saints who stood against the magesterium as well as against Popes.

Another bit of nonsense I’m tired of hearing is the claim that only a handful of Traditionalists are raising all the fuss so they must be wrong. If truth was determined by popularity folks, we would all be Arians today. “Hold fast to the TRADITIONS…” and the truth.

 

[palmas85]

Pope’s Bias? The Ex Cathedra authority of the Holy Father should not be discounted to a bias. I think the better term for this authority is revealed truth.

Many if not all of these liturgical inventions of the last 40 years were never approved by the Vatican or any council. These abuses were the result of priests and bishops execeeding boundries and not being corrected right away. There are many reasons for the Vatican’s delayed reactions, such as, assassination attempts, collapse of socialism, parkinsons disease, but it is folly for some modernist to conclude that this delay is some sign of consent from the Vatican.

To correct the abuses does not require any changes to Canon Law, Papal Encyclicals, Councils, or Synodal Exhortations. It just requires dicipline.

I agree that many of the modernists will reject obedience to the Church and will fall away. When I say modernist I do not mean those who like guitars and wearing shorts to Mass. I mean those calculating liberals who implemented these changes. Their numbers are small.

I think the Church will florish and the statistics that I cited earlier …

latin-mass-society.org/figures.htm

… will turn around. You should notice that in Traditional Parishes, there is not a vocation crisis. At my small (200 families) but rapidly growing parish, we just sent 6 young men to the Seminary. That is unheard of at any NO Parish. That is more vocations than most whole dioceses. These statistics bear out whereever there is orthodoxy.

Despite our overflowing Seminaries, the only priest shortages that we encounter is not having enough priests for the rapidly exploding demand from the faithful around the world. We can’t train them fast enough (traditional Seminary is 7 years).

God bless

Outstanding link and great articles.

 

[Rykell]

Thanks, AJV,

I did look up Zenit and found Fr. McNamara’s reply re St. Joseph:

This interest is probably inspired by the example of Pope Blessed John XXIII, who added St. Joseph’s name to the Roman Canon in 1962 at a time when Eucharistic Prayer I was still the only canon in use in the Roman Church.

I understand that if the priest is saying EP-1 at mass, isn’t the person doing the complaining against the poor priest guilty of misinformation? And if the person calls this an abuse, when it really isn’t, doesn’t this perpetuate his error?

Victorious:

We have a priest who adds the name of St. Joseph all the time. And that’s just one of the minor amendments to the Mass that priests take it upon themselves to make. around here all the time

Through what I have just learned, Victorious is misinformed, as are many others who think the priest is a radical who is not following the rubrics, and then discredit him publicly to any who will listen. Did Victorious ask for guidance? No, he just reported it as truth.

This stuff just tears me up. Surely, there can be little peace and joy in people who come to mass with binoculars.

 

[Victorious]

Through what I have just learned, Victorious is misinformed, as are many others who think the priest is a radical who is not following the rubrics, and then discredit him publicly to any who will listen. Did Victorious ask for guidance? No, he just reported it as truth.

This stuff just tears me up. Surely, there can be little peace and joy in people who come to mass with binoculars.

I am not misinformed. St. Joseph is not named in the 2nd through 4th Eucharistic prayers; he is not the patron of my parish; and I was not referring to a priest who uses the first Eucharistic prayer.

For your information, it is an abuse not to follow the rubrics, and it is an abuse particularly condemned by the Holy See for a priest to make arbitrary changes to the Eucharistic prayers (see Redemptionis Sacramentum). The Mass is not our own property to do with as we please, and it does not belong to any individual priest. The proper celebration of the liturgy, without frills and dressings, is a right of ours that we are too quick to throw away.

And for your further information, I’m a she, not a he.

 

[palmas85]

I’m not going to disagree with your statement. However, we have to understand that complete obedience on the part of the rank and file Catholic back in the 1960’s and 1970’s was the tool used by the modernist to advance their trojan horse agenda. My mom says that even though many many Catholics were shocked at the changes, they felt that they had to go along out of obedience. My oldest brother left the Mass to go to Vietnam in 69 and came back a few years later to a Circus. Now after this 40+ year experiment we have a mess and there are some great Saints who stood against the magesterium as well as against Popes.

Another bit of nonsense I’m tired of hearing is the claim that only a handful of Traditionalists are raising all the fuss so they must be wrong. If truth was determined by popularity folks, we would all be Arians today. “Hold fast to the TRADITIONS…” and the truth.

If you read post 61 you will see that your Mom and i have been holding hands on this issue for years. I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees it that way. Best wishes to your brother as one who also made the trip overseas. I too was, well, shocked is too mild a word actually, when I returned, as were many.

In any event, cheers and keep the faith.

 

[Rykell]

Victorious,

If that is the case, your post could have been more specific, agree? Instead, it appeared to be yet another attack on the clergy by a disgruntled participant. My apologies. By the way, I am a he. Glad to meet you!

 

[Walking_Home]

If you read post 61 you will see that your Mom and i have been holding hands on this issue for years. I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees it that way. Best wishes to your brother as one who also made the trip overseas. I too was, well, shocked is too mild a word actually, when I returned, as were many.

In any event, cheers and keep the faith.

---

I must say—I was quite shocked with the changes----and moreso when I found out that the changes that were imposed on us in the 60’s-70’s—were not at the time authorized by the Church. We obeyed because we believed these changes were coming from Rome and it was inconceivable for us to consider at that time that we were just being used and manipulated to further a certain groups agenda.

 

[Rykell]

Dear AJV,

Well, I found a latin mass that predated the changed canon by Pope John XXIII, and I ask myself, which has more beauty, this…??

To us also, Thy sinful servants, confiding in the multitude of Thy mercy, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy Holy Apostles and Martyrs, with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and with all Thy Saints, into whose company we beseech Thee to admit us, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offenses. Through Christ our Lord.

… or adding our wonderful Saint Joseph, whom as you know is the Patron of the Universal Church? For me, this is a welcome change and addition.

God Bless Pope John XXIII.

 

[pnewton]

For me I will stay with the issue of obedience to the Holy Father. I do not claim greater intellctual or spiritual insight than he. I we were to change back to the TLM, I would follow willingly. It is sad to see this virtue of obedience treated like a vice.

 

[AJV]

Dear AJV,

Well, I found a latin mass that predated the changed canon by Pope John XXIII, and I ask myself, which has more beauty, this…??

… or adding our wonderful Saint Joseph, whom as you know is the Patron of the Universal Church? For me, this is a welcome change and addition.

God Bless Pope John XXIII.

Sorry, could you rephrase the question? I’m a bit unclear what you mean.

 

[Rykell]

Hi AJV,

I guess it was not a question, more or less a comment musing aloud about the strangeness of the old wording, and wondering how people can think it was more beautiful than the one in use today. You don’t need to reply, necessarily.

After seeing the older latin mass of 1958 (close enough to 1962?) where the canon lists saints of the first century that have little proximity to our day, I thought the newer EP-1 that John XXIII changed to include St. Joseph was far more appropriate.

St. Joseph is our Universal Patron, and the listing of the apostles is more complete than the few in the old canon where it was prayed with “Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia.” I also considered the antiquation in the words “vouchsafe to grant” – for we don’t talk that way in modern language. V-II called for simplification in language, and in that respect, I fully agree.

I was personally glad that John XXIII made this change.

 

[AJV]

Hi AJV,

I guess it was not a question, more or less a comment musing aloud about the strangeness of the old wording, and wondering how people can think it was more beautiful than the one in use today. You don’t need to reply, necessarily.

After seeing the older latin mass of 1958 (close enough to 1962?) where the canon lists saints of the first century that have little proximity to our day, I thought the newer EP-1 that John XXIII changed to include St. Joseph was far more appropriate.

St. Joseph is our Universal Patron, and the listing of the apostles is more complete than the few in the old canon where it was prayed with “Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia.” I also considered the antiquation in the words “vouchsafe to grant” – for we don’t talk that way in modern language. V-II called for simplification in language, and in that respect, I fully agree.

I was personally glad that John XXIII made this change.

I am puzzled by your reference of the listing of the apostles being more complete. In the old Canon all the names of the apostles in the Communicantes had to be prayed unlike in the current EP I where majority are optional.

In the Roman Canon both in the TLM and in the Missal of Paul VI as EP I, there are two lists of saints. One comes after the ‘Memento’ for the living in the Communicantes- the Blessed Virgin Mary, the 11 apostles and St. Paul and 11 martyrs of Rome and St. Cyprian- popes, bishops, deacon and others. The second list comes after the ‘Memento’ for the Dead, in Nobis quoque peccatoribus, and lists St. John the Baptist followed by seven male saints including St. Stephen the first martyr, and seven female saints. Both the BVM and St. John the Baptist are named first in their respective lists and were held in very high esteem- which is why, if one looks at the Tridentine Mass St. John the Baptist is mentioned with the BVM in the Confiteor together with St. Michael (the ‘Angel of Sacrifice’) and Ss. Peter and Paul (the patrons of Rome)- a singular honour. Even in the current liturgy, in the Liturgy of the Hours, St. John the Baptist has a Solemnity and his memorias are observed with proper psalms, antiphons, reponsores, etc. not commons or ferial psalms.

The saints in the Canon are among the first martyrs of Rome (mostly) and it is highly fitting that they should be venerated in the Canon of the Latin rite which is the liturgy of Rome. I’m not too fond of the fact that many were made optional- they show us, as it were , our spiritual heritage. At the same time, it would not be an altogether bad idea to allow for the addition of other names in addition to them of local martyrs- such would possibly show the link between the martyrs of the past of the Church of Rome (mostly) and those today.

In one of the oldest sacramentaries which has the Canon, the Gelasian (Vat.), the Communicantes actually has more names- 9 more if I’m not mistaken- Dionysus, Gregory, Augustine, Hilary and some others- I can look it up if you want. It is probably interesting that the Pope who codifed the TLM, St. Pius V, was a great proponent of the cultus of the Roman martyrs. His kalendar which lasted for a VERY short time, removed many saints of his day which had become popular- including saints like St. Anne, St. Joachim, St. Anthony of Padua (later largely restored by his succesors, Sixtus, Clement and Urban.) and promoted the Roman martyrs.

A small point- since the Canon was recited in Latin, the translations vary from missal to missal. One missal may say ‘The Lord be with you. And with your spirit.’ and another ‘The Lord be with you. May he also be with you’ but the LAtin text would have been the same. Those translations were not used and were meant solely for comprehension.Even though we don’t speak that way there’s something to be said for ‘sacred English’ but that’s probably the subject fo another thread.

 

[Rykell]

Dear AJV,

I think we are getting off topic, veering into semantics about the wording in canons. I said that I liked the new change better than the old. Isn’t that ok? “The Mass is a Mystery to be lived in a death of Love. Its divine reality surpasses all words. . . It is the Action par excellence, the very act of our Redemption, in the Memorial which makes it present.” (Paul VI quoting Zundel)

Whether the mass is celebrated in original Greek, Aramaic, Latin, or the vernacular doesn’t change its essence one iota, and when the words are changed by lawful Magisterium, whether I ‘like’ them or not, I will pray them in union with the priest/celebrant.

I think this wrestling over dots and tees is incidental to the Sacred Mystery we celebrate because my faith is in the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the lawful successors of Peter. When Rome permits a change, I accept. Amen.

 

[AJV]

Dear AJV,

I think we are getting off topic, veering into semantics about the wording in canons. I said that I liked the new change better than the old. Isn’t that ok? “The Mass is a Mystery to be lived in a death of Love. Its divine reality surpasses all words. . . It is the Action par excellence, the very act of our Redemption, in the Memorial which makes it present.” (Paul VI quoting Zundel)

Whether the mass is celebrated in original Greek, Aramaic, Latin, or the vernacular doesn’t change its essence one iota, and when the words are changed by lawful Magisterium, whether I ‘like’ them or not, I will pray them in union with the priest/celebrant.

I think this wrestling over dots and tees is incidental to the Sacred Mystery we celebrate because my faith is in the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the lawful successors of Peter. When Rome permits a change, I accept. Amen.

It’s perfectly OK.

Sorry for the lengthy post (which wasn’t to be semanticly argumentative.) I thought you were conflating the two lists of saints, so I responded and like all my posts when I get too absorbed in the topic, it veered off somewhere regarding the liturgy.

 

[jfoges]

The Tridentine Mass wasn’t changed to the Novus Ordo. It remains intact today. The Novus Ordo replaced the Tridentine Mass as the rite offered in most of the Latin rite churches.

I haven’t found any logical reason for replacing the Tridentine Mass. Pope Paul VI found a reason, but, like USMC posted, he called it a new rite and an innovation.

I’m not saying the Novus Ordo isn’t valid and licit, because it clearly is both, but it is deficient just by the fact that it condensed the prayers that were said in the Tridentine Mass.

This is why I attend the Tridentine Mass or the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom whenever I have the chance.

Pope Paul VI explains in Missal Romanum why the Holy See was issuing a new revised missal. It was because the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council had asked that the liturgy be revised and sholarship and research since the time of Trent had shown the way to make the liturgy more authentic and meaningful. It is true that the Missal of 1962 was never abrogated, as Pope Benedict’s recent Motu Proprio makes clear, but the Mass of Paul VI is in no way deficient. Most Bishops, clergy, liturgical experts, and laity seem to support the change. It is only a fringe minority that prefers to attend the older rite of the mass.

 

[Victorious]

It is only a fringe minority that prefers to attend the older rite of the mass.

I guess the Holy Father is the Head Fringe.