The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

[JKirkLVNV]

I can’t see how the NO can woo anyone into the Church. There are Protestant services which are more reverent than many, if not most of, the NOs and have far less stricter rules on fasting, meat abstinence, kneeling, etc. (And I haven’t even addressed the real Church scandals of the last 40 years that I’ve had to defend.)

But see, Bob, this is where it gets tricky. According to the John Jay Report, one of the REAL Church scandals (the molestation/pedophilia crisis) was perpetuated by a majority of priests who were formed before the Council, in the pre-Conciliar Church, under the pre-conciliar Popes, and, one assumes, by the pre-conciliar Mass. Now, one could hive off with the wild idea that this was the fault of those entities, but that assumption goes a long way to demonstrating why the old crude adage about “assumptions” is true and valid. No reasonably, intellectually honest person is going to do that. It wasn’t the fault of any Council, or of Pius XII or Leo XIII, or the Tridentine Mass. We’ve had a generation of post-Concilar (not “Concilar”) silliness, we’ve had bad prelates, and we’ve had abuses of the Mass, but that isn’t the fault of the Council, or the Popes (here there is really only Paul VI and John Paul II to discuss), though I will concede that Pope John Paul seems to have erred in charity, perhaps out of a sense of bewildered disbelief that this garbage could be going on, nor is it the fault of the NO Mass.

As for your assertion that you don’t see how the NO could woo anyone into the Church, that’s the danger in universalizing your EXPERIENCE of matters or events into a STANDARD. Maybe things are that liturgically bad in your neck of the woods, but I was received into the Church in a monastic setting where the Mass was undertaken with reverence and no one dressed up like Barney. I’ve witnessed some abuses, but reverent masses far outweigh abused ones.

And please, you speak of reverence? You refer to the Mass as the “Bogus Ordo?” This is proper reverence?

Now, back to the topic of the thread. Why would any loyal Catholic get information about Holy Mother Church from a site like the one you offer instead of the Holy See (again, not listed as one of the links on the site you provide)? You’ve got radical traditionalist links mixed in with sedevacantist links, running through quite a spectrum of dissent.

 

[DustinsDad]

…According to the John Jay Report, one of the REAL Church scandals (the molestation/pedophilia crisis) was perpetuated by a majority of priests who were formed before the Council, in the pre-Conciliar Church, under the pre-conciliar Popes, and, one assumes, by the pre-conciliar Mass. Now, one could hive off with the wild idea that this was the fault of those entities, but that assumption goes a long way to demonstrating why the old crude adage about “assumptions” is true and valid…

First off, I would say that problems didn’t start with VII, there was the undercurrent that was spoken against and warned about by pre-VII popes in the 100 or so years leading up to it. But I would strongly suspect that the many changes and relaxation of disciplines within the Church after VII (especially the general notion of "opening up to the world), rather than tighten the clamp down harder on such problems, unfortunately allowed them to get bigger and more widespread.

Now, even if we were to assume that this report was entirely correct (haven’t read it myself), I’d hazard a guess that such perpetrators were much, much more likely to be the very folks who were teaching and practicing enthusiastically in the erroenous “Spirit of Vatican II” than they were likely to be staunch traditional Catholic priests who were rejecting such innovations.

…And please, you speak of reverence? You refer to the Mass as the “Bogus Ordo?” This is proper reverence?

Agreed. The term is out of line and serves no purpose here.

…Now, back to the topic of the thread. Why would any loyal Catholic get information about Holy Mother Church from a site like the one you offer instead of the Holy See (again, not listed as one of the links on the site you provide)? You’ve got radical traditionalist links mixed in with sedevacantist links, running through quite a spectrum of dissent.

Their links aside, do you have any comments on the actual article in question. I mean, as apologists, we wouldn’t neglect to address non-Catholic arguments on the basis of their links page, why not give the same courtesy to traditionalist questions and concerns?

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[BobP123]

The Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass isn’t enough to “woo” you?
wow, you’re a tough sell. . .

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

Let’s see now. The first edition of the Novus Ordo designated the Mass as “the Lord’s Supper or the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body] with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.) This seems to be what the designers had in mind too. And that’s the way it stuck with people. So yes, the sacrifice part is tough to sell.

 

[lak611]

Let’s see now. The first edition of the Novus Ordo designated the Mass as “the Lord’s Supper or the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body] with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.) This seems to be what the designers had in mind too. And that’s the way it stuck with people. So yes, the sacrifice part is tough to sell.

Was this document actually circulated to people in the parish back in 1970?

 

[BobP123]

The term is out of line and serves no purpose here.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

Methinks reverence is basically a matter of degree and subjective. I merely pointed out that *I" think many Protestant services are more reverent than many NO services.

And the word “bogus” can mean different things to a lot of people too. I use it in my line of work all the time without offending anyone. Sad that some people here don’t like the word.

So that you know, I have and have had Kirk on my ignore list. Nothing personal against him, mind you. But that’s why I replied to you; I can’t do anything about shutting him off when his quotes are embedded in another’s notes.

 

[BobP123]

Was this document actually circulated to people in the parish back in 1970?

I’m not a betting man, but I would be willing to bet it was released by some bishops “prematurely.”

You know what they say about first impressions.

 

[lak611]

I’m not a betting man, but I would be willing to bet it was released by some bishops “prematurely.”

You know what they say about first impressions.

Now I’m a little confused. Was this document supposed to be released at a later date? I had never heard of it, but I was born in 1969. I was just interested in a little history on the document.

 

[DustinsDad]

Methinks reverence is basically a matter of degree and subjective. I merely pointed out that *I" think many Protestant services are more reverent than many NO services…

Point taken.

Let me pass along some good advice from the Institute for Christ the King Sovereign Priest. Quoting from this pageof their website:
“Cook the truth in charity until it tastes sweet,” this famous quotation of St. Francis de Sales is the principle of our apostolic work. Fruitless discussions or, worse, uncharitable polemics never help to attract souls to the Lord…
We could all do well to remember this one - myself included .

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[AJV]

Let’s see now. The first edition of the Novus Ordo designated the Mass as “the Lord’s Supper or the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body] with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.) This seems to be what the designers had in mind too. And that’s the way it stuck with people. So yes, the sacrifice part is tough to sell.

And the same edition of the GIRM (forgive the pedantry: not the NO which came out a year later) also had (ignoring the references just to the word sacrifice, unqualified:

In this memorial, the Church-and in particular the Church here and now assembled-offers the Spotless Victim to the Father in the Holy Spirit.

and

At the altar the sacrifice of the cross is made present under sacramental signs.

This is the reason why Christ the Lord instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his body and blood and entrusted it to the Church, his beloved Bride, as the memorial of his passion and resurrection.

And the edition released along with the Roman Missal also contained:

For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross…

At the last supper Christ instituted the sacrifice and paschal meal that make the sacrifice of the cross to be continuously present in the Church,

In the words and actions of Christ, that sacrifice is celebrated which he himself instituted at the Last Supper, when, under the appearances of bread and wine, he offered his body and blood, gave them to his apostles to eat and drink, then commanded that they carry on this

mystery.

Within the community of believers, the presbyter is another who possesses the power of orders to offer sacrifice in the person of Christ.

ignoring the Prooemium which is full of such references.

 

[BobP123]

Now I’m a little confused. Was this document supposed to be released at a later date? I had never heard of it, but I was born in 1969. I was just interested in a little history on the document.

“Confused” is the word Monsignor Gamber uses in his book too.

In 1970 the definition was changed (again) to “In the Mass, or the Supper of the Lord, the people of God are called together into one body, with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ in order to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord, or the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”

What do you think? Which definition have you seen or heard?

 

[AJV]

Now I’m a little confused. Was this document supposed to be released at a later date? I had never heard of it, but I was born in 1969. I was just interested in a little history on the document.

An initial version fo the GIRM along with the Ordo Missae released in 1969. The entire Roman Missal came out in 1970. For the changes in the 1970 version included the Missal see forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1756075&postcount=28

 

[JKirkLVNV]

First off, I would say that problems didn’t start with VII, there was the undercurrent that was spoken against and warned about by pre-VII popes in the 100 or so years leading up to it. But I would strongly suspect that the many changes and relaxation of disciplines within the Church after VII (especially the general notion of "opening up to the world), rather than tighten the clamp down harder on such problems, unfortunately allowed them to get bigger and more widespread.

Now, even if we were to assume that this report was entirely correct (haven’t read it myself), I’d hazard a guess that such perpetrators were much, much more likely to be the very folks who were teaching and practicing enthusiastically in the erroenous “Spirit of Vatican II” than they were likely to be staunch traditional Catholic priests who were rejecting such innovations. I agree COMPLETELY, DD. “Spirit” as opposed to the actual thing.

Their links aside, do you have any comments on the actual article in question. I mean, as apologists, we wouldn’t neglect to address non-Catholic arguments on the basis of their links page, why not give the same courtesy to traditionalist questions and concerns? **Well, non-Catholics have the excuse of not knowing any better. Nonetheless, I disagree with the article, not in its assertion that the Liturgy should be expressive of the Faith, but with it’s assertion that the Pauline Rite fails to do so. I believe that the NO mass clearly presents itself as a sacrifice, the Sacrifice, that it is propitiatory, that Christ is Truly and Really Present in the confection of the Sacrifice. I believe no merely that the Mass does what it claims to do, but that it clearly asserts that it does. I also find the noble simplicity aimed for very evident. **

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So that you know, I have and have had Kirk on my ignore list. Nothing personal against him, mind you. But that’s why I replied to you; I can’t do anything about shutting him off when his quotes are embedded in another’s notes.

Nothing personal taken, Bob. In fact, I consider it an honor.

 

[DustinsDad]

Let’s see now. The first edition of the Novus Ordo designated the Mass as “the Lord’s Supper or the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body] with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.) This seems to be what the designers had in mind too. And that’s the way it stuck with people. So yes, the sacrifice part is tough to sell.

While not explicitly advocating what was condemned at Trent, the general tone of such an introduction certainly hovers close to the border of an unaccaptably incomplete theology of the mass.

See:
CANON I.–If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

How many folks, entirely faithful catholics, think the primary purpose of the mass is to receive the Eucharist?
CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
How many folks, entirely faithful catholics even understand at the minimum what a propitiatory sacrifice even means, or the mass as one?

Note here that I am NOT saying the new mass explicitly contradicts Trent, but the general understanding of the mass by the majority of the layfolk in the pews has fallen into the same notion or dangerously close to the same notion of the mass as was put forth by the Reformers. As such, it is not so much what the new mass says, as much as what it doesn’t say forcefully and clearly enough that, in my humble opinion, is a problem.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[bear06]

While not explicitly advocating what was condemned at Trent, the general tone of such an introduction certainly hovers close to the border of an unaccaptably incomplete theology of the mass.

See:
CANON I.–If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

How many folks, entirely faithful catholics, think the primary purpose of the mass is to receive the Eucharist?
CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
How many folks, entirely faithful catholics even understand at the minimum what a propitiatory sacrifice even means, or the mass as one?

Note here that I am NOT saying the new mass explicitly contradicts Trent, but the general understanding of the mass by the majority of the layfolk in the pews has fallen into the same notion or dangerously close to the same notion of the mass as was put forth by the Reformers. As such, it is not so much what the new mass says, as much as what it doesn’t say forcefully and clearly enough that, in my humble opinion, is a problem.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

What I’ve discovered over time is that it is not which Mass you attend but where you attend it. If you came to my church you’d find people with a very deep understanding of the Mass whether it be in vernacular, Latin Novus Ordo or TLM. I pray that more churches like mine pop up all over the country. I’m sure if you attend Assumption Grotto, you’d find it the same. Thankfully, in my diocese, more and more Masses like this are popping up.

 

[lak611]

“Confused” is the word Monsignor Gamber uses in his book too.

In 1970 the definition was changed (again) to “In the Mass, or the Supper of the Lord, the people of God are called together into one body, with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ in order to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord, or the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”

What do you think? Which definition have you seen or heard?

While not explicitly advocating what was condemned at Trent, the general tone of such an introduction certainly hovers close to the border of an unaccaptably incomplete theology of the mass.

[/INDENT]How many folks, entirely faithful catholics, think the primary purpose of the mass is to receive the Eucharist?
CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
How many folks, entirely faithful catholics even understand at the minimum what a propitiatory sacrifice even means, or the mass as one?

Note here that I am NOT saying the new mass explicitly contradicts Trent, but the general understanding of the mass by the majority of the layfolk in the pews has fallen into the same notion or dangerously close to the same notion of the mass as was put forth by the Reformers. As such, it is not so much what the new mass says, as much as what it doesn’t say forcefully and clearly enough that, in my humble opinion, is a problem.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

I have not heard the term “memorial”, but I have heard a priest say “Sacrifice of praise”.

 

[BobP123]

I have not heard the term “memorial”, but I have heard a priest say “Sacrifice of praise”.

I dunno. Hardly what is called sacrifice in the Old Testament, where, in order to be most pleasing to God, what was to be sacrificed was to be the best the priest had. His offering of a sick lamb or extra food, for example, was not the best he could have given.

And don’t forget Abraham. He actually was in the process of slaying his own son because that’s what he thought God wanted. (Of course he was stopped before he went through with it.)

The point is, the sacrifice aspect of the Mass must be taken seriously. I think we all agree on that?

 

[lak611]

The point is, the sacrifice aspect of the Mass must be taken seriously. I think we all agree on that?

Mass is the Holy and Perfect Sacrifice.

 

[MTD]

Note here that I am NOT saying the new mass explicitly contradicts Trent, but the general understanding of the mass by the majority of the layfolk in the pews has fallen into the same notion or dangerously close to the same notion of the mass as was put forth by the Reformers. As such, it is not so much what the new mass says, as much as what it doesn’t say forcefully and clearly enough that, in my humble opinion, is a problem.

Those are good points.

However, I would note that the Tridentine Rite is always in Latin and that many of the prayers of the priest are prayed silently. This means two things: 1) that those who don’t know Latin, which is the vast majority, cannot understand the text of the prayers, and 2) that those who do know Latin do not get acquainted with the text of a lot of the prayers because so many are prayed silently. Of course, the remedy for these two problems is the use of a missal; regardless, no one is required to use a missal with the vernacular translation in order to derive spiritual benefit, and indeed many did not until the last century or so.

So whence comes the understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice? To claim that the TLM is fosters it more than the NO because of the prayers is not necessarily accurate because of the two points I brought up. I think the answer is catechesis. I agree that the NO doesn’t address the sacrificial nature of the Mass as much as the TLM, but that can’t be posited as the main reason for the lack of understanding so prevalent today since after all, the TLM isn’t necessarily more conducive to that understanding. It can be, but it isn’t necessarily. In fact, I’m quite sure that at the time of Trent, no layman used a missal, and yet he understood the sacrificial nature of the Mass, did he not? So I think the missing link today is proper catechesis.

Maria

 

[DustinsDad]

…So whence comes the understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice? To claim that the TLM is fosters it more than the NO because of the prayers is not necessarily accurate because of the two points I brought up. I think the answer is catechesis. I agree that the NO doesn’t address the sacrificial nature of the Mass as much as the TLM, but that can’t be posited as the main reason for the lack of understanding so prevalent today since after all, the TLM isn’t necessarily more conducive to that understanding. It can be, but it isn’t necessarily. In fact, I’m quite sure that at the time of Trent, no layman used a missal, and yet he understood the sacrificial nature of the Mass, did he not? So I think the missing link today is proper catechesis.

Couple of things…as you say, the text of the TLM liturgy does express the sacrificial nature of the mass more explicitly than does the text of the NO liturgy, and it’s important to remember that a big chuck of the catechesis of the mass that educated the layfolk was based and formulated around these these texts, since these texts made up the mass itself. In other words, it is in large part the words of the liturgy itself that catachizes. The explicit sacrificial nature of the mass expressed in the liturgy was made clear to the priests who in turn transmitted this understanding to the lay-folk who had it ingrained in them from their childhood. So making the mass in the vernacular at the same time as the sacrificail nature of the texts were, shall we say, softened, is just a recipe for bad catachesis…serves to really confuse the laity who really got the impression oftentimes - and wrongly so - that the sacrificial nature of the mass is something that “changed” with Vatican II. And if that can change, then anything is up for grabs…and if anything is up for grabs in the One True Church, then adios…where’s the exit door. I think that explains why so many folks left in the confusing times following VII and the institution of the NO Liturgy. I say this not from some deep insight of my own, but just from talking to so many protestant friends who’s parents left the church during this time of “upheaval”.

Anyway - second point…the text of the liturgy notwithstanding, don’t underestimate the other aspects of the TLM liturgy - the gestures, etc. and their ability to communicate the sacrificial nature of the mass. One thing that struck me in my first couple of TLMs was that the gestures and behavior of everyone in the church signified to me that they all understood and believed what we all are *supposed *to understand and believe as Catholics. It just communicates it more clearly. As it is said, sometimes actions speak louder than words.

That’s all - gotta run.

Thanks and God bless!

DustinsDad