TLM & Novus Ordo - different emphases on Sin?

[brigid12]

In my limited experience and limited knowledge, the difference that partly assisted the decline in the beliefs of Catholics between the EF and the OF (besides the deplorable state of catechesis and the general social rebellion) is that the mystery and Supernatural quality isn’t obvious in the OF as it is in the EF, IMHO.

 

[Jacafamala]

In my limited experience and limited knowledge, the difference that partly assisted the decline in the beliefs of Catholics between the EF and the OF (besides the deplorable state of catechesis and the general social rebellion) is that the mystery and Supernatural quality isn’t obvious in the OF as it is in the EF, IMHO.

This is true. Also there’s been a general lack of private devotions at the OF in my area (NJ). OF Catholicism here is definitely more “earthy”, if you will.

But I also think the original poster has a valid point. I haven’t read his essay. (Has anyone opened that doc yet?) Anyway, certain doctrines of the Faith are taboo in most of the sermons at the OF such as satan, hell, necessity of confession.–Not always, there are some old school OF priests who do speak about these things but again, they’re too few and far between.

As Bishop Williamson said, “All they want to talk about love, love, love.”

 

[pnewton]

This is true. Also there’s been a general lack of private devotions at the OF in my area (NJ). OF Catholicism here is definitely more “earthy”, if you will.

How can one possible know that? Private devotions are by their very nature, private. Some of us take the Lord’s command seriously to go into our closet to pray and to wash our face when we fast. What I do not see as appropriate is placing one self in public eye to pray as the Pharisees do. Perhaps this is why you see more “private” devotion at your parish? No Catholicism is earthy. I find that statement ridiculous and insulting to the Church of God.

As to the OP, I see a problem with the proposition that one emphasizes mercy too much and sin is not emphasized enough. It is not justice that makes us aware of mercy. It is sin. Only with a keen realization of sin can one more fully appreciate mercy. Mercy can only be emphasized to the extent the grievous nature of sin is emphasized.

I think one thing will improve the Mass in the near future. The new translation of the mea culpa will be given a literal translation and thrice repeated.

 

[Jacafamala]

How can one possible know that? Private devotions are by their very nature, private.

In the OF churches in my area–most of them–it’s kind of passe. I’ve heard Youth Ministry Leaders say such things as, “We know that noone prays the Rosary anymore…”–stuff like that.

Some of us take the Lord’s command seriously to go into our closet to pray and to wash our face when we fast. What I do not see as appropriate is placing one self in public eye to pray as the Pharisees do. Perhaps this is why you see more “private” devotion at your parish?

No, I stopped going to the OF a while back. I’m at the EF. We pray the Rosary before every Mass, while Confessions are being heard. I don’t think people are puffed up about that. It’s just what’s done; just the way it is there. Often we start Novenas or have Benediction after Mass.

No Catholicism is earthy. I find that statement ridiculous and insulting to the Church of God.

I’m just quoting what an OF priest told me. I didn’t mean it as an insult, neither did he. Before you go jumping the gun and getting all insulted, you should ask what I meant. Let me know if you do–want to know what I meant. I’m sorry if it came off bad that way.

 

[CradleCath]

How can one possible know that? Private devotions are by their very nature, private. Some of us take the Lord’s command seriously to go into our closet to pray and to wash our face when we fast. What I do not see as appropriate is placing one self in public eye to pray as the Pharisees do. Perhaps this is why you see more “private” devotion at your parish? No Catholicism is earthy. I find that statement ridiculous and insulting to the Church of God.

1. People who come early to Mass to say their rosary, are not “praying like Pharisees”, nor are those of us who stay after Mass to pray the “Prayers of Thanksgiving for the Mass” that are contained in most of Latin/English missals. I have a son who is going through a hard time right now & I’ve remained in Church after Mass to light a candle that represents the prayers I’ll be praying for him all week. Though I did so in Church where I can be seen, where others are there praying, I still consider this a very private devotion.

You seem to negate the fact that a Catholic Church
is not only a building, in which we worship God but also itself the expression of an act of worshipful homage. In a Church built correctly, according to Catholic tradition…following the Catholic principles of Ecclesiastical Architecture (not many of those Churches left) **…the “æsthetic qualities of the building have been entirely subordinated to its primary purpose” **. It’s primary purpose is PRAYER. I am blessed to attend a Church that was not wreckovated in the late 60’s & 70’s. I go there to pray, often. You see, when one enters that Church with it’s high ceilings, it’s Tabernacle, it’s awe inspiring crucifix & statues, It takes one away from the busy-busyness of the work-a-day world. Though there may be a couple of other people there as one makes a visit on Tues. at 2PM., one may essentially pray in private while kneeling in a public space.

As to the OP, I see a problem with the proposition that one emphasizes mercy too much and sin is not emphasized enough. It is not justice that makes us aware of mercy. It is sin. Only with a keen realization of sin can one more fully appreciate mercy. Mercy can only be emphasized to the extent the grievous nature of sin is emphasized.

 

[pnewton]

1. People who come early to Mass to say their rosary, are not “praying like Pharisees”, nor are those of us who stay after Mass to pray the “Prayers of Thanksgiving for the Mass” that are contained in most of Latin/English missals.

Yes that is a form of private prayer, but not the only one. The poster above had stated there was a decline in private prayer. Now I see it was some Youth Minister that made a comment. I still can not fathom, whether from a staff or some other person, how a comment can be justified, or even measured. Just because one does not see public private prayer (?) does not reflect on private private prayer. Some of us really like to keep our private devotions to ourselves and at times when we have the rarity of being alone (as taught by the Lord).

I guess if anyone were to state more accurately that there was a decline in public private prayer (or devotion) it would be shown as the strange remark it is.

FYI - My parish has no such decline so I guess it might be a local thing for the OP.

I don’t see a problem with the propostition that our Church today is out of balance concerning two Divine characteristics…justice & mercy. It is.

I too see no problem with such an opinion. It is one that I have considered to be applicable to many people, if not the Church.

 

[Alindawyl]

Alindawyl - you challenged me that I said “the OF only represents part of the picture”. I disagree with your assertion.

What I said in my essay is that I believe the OF Prayers de-emphasized the Church’s teachings on Sin & Divine Justice, and that it shifted the balance between that and Divine Mercy - I did NOT say that the OF Prayers have eliminated the mention of Sin and Divine Justice entirely. Certainly, the OF Prayers do emphasize Sin & Divine Justice to a significant degree (the Penitential Rite, the Lamb of God, the “Lord I am not worthy…”, etc.), but IMO they are remarkably downplayed wrt how Sin & Divine Justice and the same prayers are expressed in the EF Prayers.

I apologize for being overly brief and vague. I was referring to your use of “either/or” for post-conciliar Catholics and “both/and” for pre-conciliar Catholics. My intent was not to claim that you believed the OF lacks any mention of sin whatsoever, but to point out that you are indirectly insinuating such by how you phrase things in your essay. Even the question you ask as the subtitle of the essay does so.

The first two pages were spot on. One cannot disagree with the statement that a great many post-conciliar Catholics seem to think Church teaching is different today than it was 40 years ago. That’s exemplified by the blatantly dissenting authors of the book “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Catholicism”. A book which my own priest (OF, if it matters) bluntly tells people to throw away. It’s riddled with either mistakes or flat out lies.

By using it as a source document for the leading portion of your essay, along with discussion of post-conciliar Catholics as having an “either/or” mindset when it comes to sin/love, you have at least casually linked the OF Mass with those who dissent from the Church.

Compare the TLM to the OF Mass you see on EWTN or celebrated by the pope, rather than the OF Mass you see in the churches of dissenting priests or bishops. The problem is not with the liturgy. As always the problem is with people, both laity and clergy. Ban the OF so that only the EF can be celebrated and you will still have dissenting priests/bishops. They’ll be just as willing to change the EF to suit their own personal desires as they are to change the OF, and many of the laity will be just as willing to go along with it as they are under the OF.

 

[japhy]

Given the current and widespread disarray amongst the faithful in understanding of and in obedience to the Catholic Church’s teachings, I believe that greater promotion of the TLM is urgently needed today to bring a much greater respect for the harmfulness of Sin in the world today.

Too often, comparisons between the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the Ordinary Form of the Mass concentrate on English translations. Now, while that is fair for showing how the present English translation is lacking or defective, it is not useful for showing that the Ordinary Form itself (the normative Latin text) is lacking or defective. I have not read your essay yet (it’s printed out, on my desk, next to a highlighter) so I don’t know what version of the texts you’re comparing, but I want that point to be kept in mind. Of course, such uneven comparisons will be a thing of the past once the revised English translation is completed, Deo gratias!

I do own a copy of then Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Spirit of the Liturgy”. So far, I have used it as not much more than a reference book, and have yet to read it from cover to cover.

I have Spirit of the Liturgy by Ratzinger as well. (I also have Fr. Guardini’s book of the same name from several decades earlier. It’s a more heady read than Ratzinger’s, but it has its qualities and merits too.)

It is good as a reference book – I used it frequently for Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the People, and I’m using it again for Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the Priest. But I read it through from cover to cover first; there’s plenty in it that’s not “reference” material.

a concerted effort to re-catechize Catholics (both adults and youth) is crucial. … any reform(s) to the Liturgy will have far less than the needed impact, if solid catechesis is not also promoted by the Bishops.

This is, believe it or not, what the Second Vatican Council said about liturgical reform!
But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain. Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 11)

[P]astors of souls must zealously strive to achieve [this participation], by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work. Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy. (SC 14)
I assume you have, but if you haven’t, read the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, especially articles 1-20 which deal with underlying principles of liturgical participation and catechesis.

even many devout Catholics don’t have a good understanding wrt what is really happening during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and thereby don’t participate as well as they could. … Catechesis on the Mass, and how we can more fully participate in it, desperately needs to be better conveyed/taught to the faithful.

I absolutely agree, which is why I bought up somewhere around a dozen catechetical books on the Mass a year or so ago, to read and research, both for my own spiritual growth and for resources in my books. Just because the Mass is celebrated in a language you can understand doesn’t mean you’ll understand the Mass! This is the false lure of the vernacular. Please note I’m not condemning the vernacular; it’s just that the vernacular has an appeal of instant perceptibility to some people, and it’s an illusory appeal: “Just because a text is in a language you can read does not mean you can necessarily understand it.” (Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the People, p. 8)

“The Secret of the Mass” … discusses one incredible way to more fully participation at Mass was written last year by Jonathan Chamblee.

I’m skimmed his essay (which I will read before yours). Although he doesn’t quote Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei (which you should read), he makes similar observations and draws similar conclusions when he mentions the presence of the common priesthood in the prayers of the E.F. of the Mass.

Mr. Chamblee and I do disagree, however, on what the real “needs” were for the substantial reforms of the Liturgy which were done after Vatican II.

I’ll comment on this when I’ve read the two essays.

 

[japhy]

I am convinced that the catechesis of the Catholic faithful even before Vatican II was seriously deficient also … Despite the fact that the Baltimore Catechism was “drilled” into the minds of American youth for many decades before Vatican II, what percentage of Catholics really understood the Mass, participated in the Holy Sacrifice truly to the best of their ability, and strived to live lives of personal holiness?

Very well could be. Bishop Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, recently addressed this same issue in his pastoral letter, Ecclesia Semper Reformanda:
2. We must strengthen catechesis on every level, beginning with and focusing on adults. If we, who are supposed to be mature in faith, do not know the Catholic Faith well, how can we live it and impart it to our children and future generations of Catholics?

…

We receive and accept the fullness of faith in the Church both objectively and affectively. Before the Second Vatican Council, our catechesis in the United States was very strongly formal and aimed at the head. We memorized concise answers to common questions, and followed the disciplines of the Church because that was what Catholics did. We knew the answers to “what” and “how,” but not the deeper answer to “why.” We fell into a shallow formalism; we did not use the form for its true end, namely, a deep, personal, intimate relationship with God through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit that transforms our hearts. After the Council, we swung wildly in the opposite direction: our catechesis became very strongly affective in order to emphasize the relational aspect. We tried to mine our experience of God’s love for us, to learn how to love God deeply, personally, and intimately in return. But without the formal knowledge of faith, experience alone is not a solid teacher. As a result, two generations of us now have a very poor knowledge both of the Catholic Faith and of Jesus Christ. A religious illiteracy and ignorance pervades many sectors of the Church; it is an open wound in her side. We need a solid, systematic, and comprehensive catechesis, not eschewing “what” and “how,” but answering also “why,” faithful to the entire Deposit of Faith and the Church’s Magisterium, forming both head and heart.

IMO, the “need” for Liturgical reform touted by the Council Fathers was merely the easy way out of the catechetical problem, rather than making a concerted effort to better instruct the faithful…

But the text of the Council doesn’t support your opinion here. The Council recognized the need for both liturgical catechesis and liturgical reform. Not one or the other, but both. (And I would argue that the Council documents expected a catechesis on the liturgy as it was in 1962, which would mean the Council did not expect a complete re-write of the Missal thus rendering the theological liturgical catechesis of the 1962 Missal null and void!)

Certainly, the OF Prayers do emphasize Sin & Divine Justice to a significant degree … but IMO they are remarkably downplayed wrt how Sin & Divine Justice and the same prayers are expressed in the EF Prayers.

This is why a decent and thorough catechesis of the O.F. must make reference back to the E.F.. If they are truly two forms of the same Rite, they cannot differ in theology. Thus, there are some places where the O.F. improves upon the E.F. (such as the inclusion of sins of omission in the Confiteor), but places where the O.F. is lacking content found in the E.F., and thus that E.F. content must be brought to mind, either by restoring it to the O.F. or by including it in catechesis on the O.F., as my book on the priest’s prayers will do.

Given that the OF Liturgy emphasizes much more (over-emphasized?) the communal meal aspect of the Eucharist…

I am curious what parts of the Ordinary Form (in its normative Latin text and traditional celebration, e.g. ad orientem) emphasize the Eucharist as a communal meal rather than a sacrifice.

The Eucharist / Holy Communion must be acknowledged as a “sacrificial banquet”, that is, both a sacrifice and a sacred meal. But it is not a casual meal or a simply “communal” meal. Holy Communion is not the result of us coming together as a community and having a meal to celebrate/manifest that. It is first a sacrifice, and then a sacred meal which does more than just manifest mere earthly or local community. There is a delicate balance which must be respected. You can go too far in either direction, with unfortunate results.

I admit that the Offertory Prayers are weak in the sacrificial dimension. But the inclusion of certain prayers (such as the extension of the Ecce Agnus Dei to include the quote from Revelation regarding the supper of the Lamb) is, in my opinion, a good thing, because it draws a clear connection between Holy Communion and the eschatalogical banquet in Heaven.

 

[Jacafamala]

Yes that is a form of private prayer, but not the only one. The poster above had stated there was a decline in private prayer.

No, I said private devotions in general. They’re not encouraged at most of the OF parishes in my area.

I said nothing of private prayer.

Now I see it was some Youth Minister that made a comment. I still can not fathom, whether from a staff or some other person, how a comment can be justified, or even measured. Just because one does not see public private prayer (?) does not reflect on private private prayer. Some of us really like to keep our private devotions to ourselves and at times when we have the rarity of being alone (as taught by the Lord).

That’s between you and God. But if everyone kept private devotions a secret, how do we pass them on? They’d die out. That would be a shame.

I guess if anyone were to state more accurately that there was a decline in public private prayer (or devotion) it would be shown as the strange remark it is.

Things like devotions to a particular saint, novenas, rosary, chaplets, by en large these sorts of things are only done by the old ladies who grew up pre VII in my area. At the OF, you don’t get a lot of that. You might not like it, neither do I; it’s the way things are in my area, I’m sorry.

FYI - My parish has no such decline so I guess it might be a local thing for the OP.

Then I think you’re a lucky guy that way.

I too see no problem with such an opinion. It is one that I have considered to be applicable to many people, if not the Church.

hmm.

 

[Alindawyl]

Too often, comparisons between the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the Ordinary Form of the Mass concentrate on English translations. Now, while that is fair for showing how the present English translation is lacking or defective, it is not useful for showing that the Ordinary Form itself (the normative Latin text) is lacking or defective. I have not read your essay yet (it’s printed out, on my desk, next to a highlighter) so I don’t know what version of the texts you’re comparing, but I want that point to be kept in mind. Of course, such uneven comparisons will be a thing of the past once the revised English translation is completed, Deo gratias!

Good point. Everyone knows the current English translation is not a good one.

When the 1970 Missale Romanum was first published, the parish my parents attended was allowed to begin offering the Mass in English immediately despite the lack of an official translation. Quite understandably, the translation they used was a rather literal translation of the Latin in the Missal.

Being born in 1970, I was unfortunately too young to remember those Masses. My parents both remember, and initally it was welcomed by just about everyone with no complaint. When the official translation of 1973 came into use, they expected it to be very similar to what they’d been saying for the past few years. Needless to say, they and most of the other people at the parish weren’t thrilled. The priest wasn’t thrilled either.

After looking at the side by side comparison on the USCCB website last month, my father said the new translation is almost identical to what they said before the 1973 translation.

 

[japhy]

After looking at the side by side comparison on the USCCB website last month, my father said the new translation is almost identical to what they said before the 1973 translation.

Yes, if you compare the unofficial translations of the E.F. Mass (found in personal missals) with the English text of the 1965 (interim) MIssal and the English text of the new translation, you will find great similarities. The current official English translation sticks out like a sore thumb among those groups.

Sadly, this is because there was a very different theory of translation in the late 1960’s, and an express instruction not to use a translation with which the people were already familiar with! See this post for details and quotes from Church documents. Here’s a brief except: It should be borne in mind that for the canon the Holy See is not approving translations which are already found in the missals of the faithful and which have been allowed ad interim in past years. It will be necessary to prepare a new translation, and one that is made with care. Moreover, this translation should be accurate and integral. The texts should be taken as they are, without mutilations or simplifications of any kind. Adaptations to the character of the spoken tongue should be sober and prudent. The periti should accept this norm in good spirit, since its application is necessary at the present time. It is not opportune to “jump the gun.” When the time has come to create, then it will no longer be necessary to be tied down to the restrictions of literal translation. But, for the present time, we are still at the point in which we must more fully uncover and live by all the riches of our liturgical heritage.
Also, that post has links to four English translations (unofficial 1962, official 1965, official current, official future) for comparison.

 

[japhy]

in my essay I am merely making assertions and asking tough questions as to whether or not the Church’s reforms after the Council (a shift to de-emphasize Sin & Divine Justice and thus disrupt their proper balance with Divine Mercy) were also an over-reaction.

There must be a via media, a middle ground which acknowledges the gravity and wickedness of sin, the necessity of God’s justice, and also His eagerness to envelop us in His Divine Mercy. (Hmm, there’s an idea – if only the devotion to Divine Mercy had caught on before the post-V2 reforms!)

I just honestly can’t recall hearing OF Prayers at Mass which mention “evil”, the devil, God’s wrath, guilt for sin, etc., on anything close to a regular basis, akin to what occurs in the EF Prayers.

Fr. Z has shown, through his regular analysis of the propers of the Ordinary Form, that certain concepts and words (in the Latin) have been excised and replaced. It is quite a shame.

So, why didn’t the official Latin text use “peccatis” instead of “erroribus”?

Is this prayer also found in the Extraordinary Form? I’d be interested in comparing the two, if that’s the case.

 

[Timothysis]

As Bishop Williamson said, “All they want to talk about love, love, love.”

Do you mean like the love of the shepherd who leaves the 99 to look for the 1?

Do you mean like the love of the father who welcomes back with tear-filled eyes his prodigal son?

Do you mean like the love of the Good Samaritan who cared for the injured man?

Do you mean like the love of the good son who does his father’s will?

Do you mean like the love of Christ who took pity on the sick and infirm and healed them?

Do you mean like the love of God "who so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life?"

Do you mean like the love of God’s only begotten Son, who willingly gave Himself as a sacrifice of love for all of mankind?

Do you mean like the love of Christ, who gave us Himself in the sacrament of the Eucharist, who absolves us from our sins through the sacrament of penance, who offers us His Sacred Heart to console us at our time of death?

Yeah, all this “love, love, love” has no place in Catholic worship.

 

[quovadis7]

There must be a via media, a middle ground which acknowledges the gravity and wickedness of sin, the necessity of God’s justice, and also His eagerness to envelop us in His Divine Mercy. (Hmm, there’s an idea – if only the devotion to Divine Mercy had caught on before the post-V2 reforms!)

Fr. Z has shown, through his regular analysis of the propers of the Ordinary Form, that certain concepts and words (in the Latin) have been excised and replaced. It is quite a shame.

Is this prayer also found in the Extraordinary Form? I’d be interested in comparing the two, if that’s the case.

japhy,

This OF prayer is the “Preface II of Sundays Per Annum - On the mystery of salvation”.

BTW, in my essay I relied solely upon literal English translations of the official Latin OF Prayers for my comparisons - I saw no use in muddying the waters by using the very poor ICEL translations.

That Fr. Z’s efforts have shown “certain concepts and words (in the Latin) have been excised and replaced” in the OF Proper Prayers tends to substantiate the assertion I make in my essay - that the balance between Sin & Divine Justice vs. Divine Mercy has been upset in the OF Prayers.

In my essay, I contend also that the EF Prayers already provided what you termed the “*via media” - *i.e. that they already do as good a job, and usually a much better job, at providing this needed balance than the OF Prayers do.

Your quote from Bishop Nichols’ pastoral letter, Ecclesia Semper Reformanda, was fabulous! I must read it in its entirety. However, in the selection which you quoted, I believe that Bishop Nichols and I are of the same mindset when he said that “After the Council, we swung wildly in the opposite direction” - I think that this directly applies also to what I believe has been an over-emphasis upon Divine Mercy in the current OF Prayers.

You have, however, set me straight that the Council Fathers taught and promoted both Liturgical reform and instruction - it’s a shame that after the Council the Bishops completely dropped the ball on the latter. Thanks VERY much for that correction though! Just shows that I need to re-read Sancrosanctum Concilium again…

Nonetheless, you must admit that in many respects the Council Fathers were **much **too vague on what in particular needed reform in the Liturgy, like when they said:

• the reformed rites should be “unencumbered by useless repetitions” (SC 34), and
• that “they be given new * vigor* to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times” (SC 4)

The Council Fathers never bothered defining what the “needs of modern times” really were, and they didn’t say either what in particular in the 1962 Mass lacked “vigor” or was “useless repetition”. How do we know that the liturgical reforms which were imposed upon the Church in 1969 were truly the ones which were really “needed” or “necessary” for the Church?

I’m not saying by any stretch like some ultra-trads do that the the OF Liturgy is heretical or invalid, but then Cardinal Ratzinger himself said that the post-conciliar liturgical reforms "… left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product." (Christian Order, March 1993, pages 162-163).

My participation in the EF Liturgy with the post-conciliar mindset in which I was catechized has allowed me to experience the Mass over the past 18 months in a much more profound way than I would ever have dreamed possible (praised be God!) - in large measure, I am convinced, it is because the EF Prayers

• more clearly emphasize the Holy and Perpetual Sacrifice of our Lord,
• strike what I am convinced is a much better balance of Divine Justice vs. Divine Mercy than the OF Prayers, and
• that they present anew the rich liturgical patrimony of our Catholic heritage, which the OF Prayers in substantial measure either unintentionally ignored or intentionally excised.

I am certain that once more and more Catholics truly understand our rich liturgical patrimony available in the EF Liturgy, the better and more deeply they will be able to truly and more actively participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. That, in turn, will truly accelerate the “new springtime” in the Church so often touted as having already begin in the wake of Vatican II…

Thanks so much for your comments and references!

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

 

[quovadis7]

Yeah, all this “love, love, love” has no place in Catholic worship.

Tim,

NONE of us has asserted that love has no place in Catholic worship!

What I and others ARE asserting is that it is very misguided (if not outright wrong) to have an excessive focus upon God’s love w/o a balancing focus upon His Divine Justice; I am also asserting that the imbalance is ultimately harmful to the life of the Church and Her individual members.

Like I said at the beginning of my essay - Catholic belief is not “either/or”- it is “both/and”…

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

 

[palmas85]

Do you mean like the love of the shepherd who leaves the 99 to look for the 1?

Do you mean like the love of the father who welcomes back with tear-filled eyes his prodigal son?

Do you mean like the love of the Good Samaritan who cared for the injured man?

Do you mean like the love of the good son who does his father’s will?

Do you mean like the love of Christ who took pity on the sick and infirm and healed them?

Do you mean like the love of God “who so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life?”

Do you mean like the love of God’s only begotten Son, who willingly gave Himself as a sacrifice of love for all of mankind?

Do you mean like the love of Christ, who gave us Himself in the sacrament of the Eucharist, who absolves us from our sins through the sacrament of penance, who offers us His Sacred Heart to console us at our time of death?

Yeah, all this “love, love, love” has no place in Catholic worship.

Hi Tim:wave:

I would cetainly hope that you take the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the catechism and with scripture in general. Jesus clearly and unequivocally throws down the gauntlet and preaches about Hell and damnation.

Quite forcefully as a matter of fact.

In fact, in one, I suppose fairly obscure passage that I have never heard spoken about except at Traditional Masses, Jesus says, that he will send His angels to gather all evil doers and cast them into the furnace of fire saying “depart from me you cursed into the eternal fire.”

Section 1035 of the catechism affirms that those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell to suffer its punishments.

There are many others Tim:wave:, far too many to mention here. Lets just say that your assertation that mercy trumps justice and the overemphasis on love at the expense of justice is not supported in scripture, in the Catechism or in any approved Catholic teaching that I am aware of.

It sounds as if you are perilously close to the sin of presumption of Gods Mercy, which sad to say more than a few people are. That is not a good place to be. Not a good place at all.:tsktsk:

Be careful Tim. Very careful

 

[Timothysis]

Hi Tim:wave:

I would cetainly hope that you take the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the catechism and with scripture in general. Jesus clearly and unequivocally throws down the gauntlet and preaches about Hell and damnation.

He also preaches about love and mercy.

Quite forcefully as a matter of fact.

Yes, He does speak quite forcefully about love and mercy, too.

In fact, in one, I suppose fairly obscure passage that I have never heard spoken about except at Traditional Masses, Jesus says, that he will send His angels to gather all evil doers and cast them into the furnace of fire saying “depart from me you cursed into the eternal fire.”

No doubt. In many less than obscure passages he speaks about the great love which He has for each of us, too.

Section 1035 of the catechism affirms that those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell to suffer its punishments.

Indeed, this is one of the Church’s constant teachings.

There are many others Tim:wave:, far too many to mention here. Lets just say that your assertation that mercy trumps justice and the overemphasis on love at the expense of justice is not supported in scripture, in the Catechism or in any approved Catholic teaching that I am aware of.

Mankind, because of our fallen state, does not deserve Heaven. Yet, in the very beginning of Sacred Scripture, we see the work of God’s infinite mercy and love by promising us a redeemer. Because of our sins, Mankind deserves Hell. In fact, Justice demands it. There is nothing that we can do of ourselves that can gain Heaven for us. Jesus, in the infinite Mercy and Love of God, however, stands before us not as a judge but as an advocate, invoking His infinite supply of Mercy to save our souls. The flaming sword is sheathed; the Mercy of Christ saves us from the fires of Hell. And to what is all of this based on? The infinite Love of God. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Mercy trumps Justice. While we deserve Hell we can claim Heaven by being faithful to Christ. And how do we remain faithful to Christ? By obeying His commandments. On the title page of my mom’s 1953 missal is a picture of Christ crucified. Underneath is the line "Greater love than this, no man hath." Is it really possible to “overemphasize” this?

Christ to Saint Margaret Mary: “Sinners shall find in my Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy.”

Christ to Saint Faustina: Even the most
hardened sinner, if he recites this Chaplet even once, will
receive grace from My Infinite Mercy. I want the whole world to
know My Infinite Mercy. I want to give unimaginable graces to
those who trust in My Mercy…"

It sounds as if you are perilously close to the sin of presumption of Gods Mercy, which sad to say more than a few people are. That is not a good place to be. Not a good place at all.:tsktsk:

And who is being presumptuous here? Consider that "the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you."

Be careful Tim. Very careful

If you wish to conceive of the figure of Christ as a Byzantine figure with knotted brows, stiffened sinew, and hand raised in condemnation then that is your privilege. For myself, I trust in the One who cured the sick, pitied the lost, forgave sinners like myself, gave Himself for me and the whole world because “*greater love than this, no man hath,”
*, comes to me every mass in the Most Holy Eucharist, forgives my sins in the sacrament of penance and who pours out His Mercy from His bloodied Sacred Heart. I hope to know true contrition for my sins so that I may worthily and sincerely say, "Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner." Are you telling me that it’s still possible to “overemphasize” Christ’s Love and Mercy?

 

[japhy]

This OF prayer is the “Preface II of Sundays Per Annum - On the mystery of salvation”.

Ok. I’ll be reading the two essays tonight, so I’ll have some more constructive criticism tomorrow.

in my essay I relied solely upon literal English translations of the official Latin OF Prayers

Good move.

I contend also that the EF Prayers already provided what you termed the "via media"…

But you said (in post #19): “the ‘pendulum’ merely swung the other way after the Council, purely as a reaction to the over-emphasis upon Sin & Divine Justice before the Council.”

I believe that Bishop [Nickless] and I are of the same mindset when he said that “After the Council, we swung wildly in the opposite direction” - … an over-emphasis upon Divine Mercy in the current OF Prayers.

I have not read his complete letter yet (I have a lot of reading to do!) but I don’t know whether he reaches the conclusion you do. He does say that “our catechesis became very strongly affective in order to emphasize the relational aspect” which implies an emphasis on our (positive) relationship and experience with God, which in practice resulted in an overlooking of our negative relationship with God, namely, our separation from Him due to sin, a separation which is not relegated to some distant past, but which can be manifested again by grave sin and which can be permanent if we die outside of God’s grace.

You have, however, set me straight that the Council Fathers taught and promoted both Liturgical reform and instruction - it’s a shame that after the Council the Bishops completely dropped the ball on the latter.

I’m not even 30, so I wasn’t there, but what I’ve heard and read would lead me to draw the same conclusion: Bishops expected that the reform (and specifically the introduction of the vernacular) would make catechesis less necessary. As for the quality of the reform, that’s not so much the fault of the Bishops… they were just implementing the liturgy they were given. It is more the fault of the Consilium whose task it was to implement the Constitution.

Nonetheless, you must admit that in many respects the Council Fathers were much too vague on what in particular needed reform

Yes, there was some element of vagueness in the Constitution. Paragraphs 50-58 provide (to varying degrees of specificity) reforms to be introduced to the liturgy. (Note, I say “reforms to be introduced to the liturgy”, not “rules for the construction of a new liturgy”.)

We are confronted with certain questions, as you suggested:
What “useless repetitions” did the Council Fathers have in mind?
What is this “new vigor” and what are the “needs of modern times”?

How do we know that the liturgical reforms which were imposed upon the Church in 1969 were truly the ones which were really “needed” or “necessary” for the Church?

We do not, sadly. Cardinal Ratzinger has written strong words against the manner in which the Ordinary Form liturgy was written up and imposed on the Church. See [these strong words (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4033925&postcount=172) from his memoirs, Milestones. And, as Dom Alcuin Reid’s recent book The Organic Development of the Liturgy shows, there have been some bad reforms of liturgical books that ended up being repealed or rejected.

My participation in the EF Liturgy with the post-conciliar mindset in which I was catechized has allowed me to experience the Mass over the past 18 months in a much more profound way than I would ever have dreamed possible

I agree (and I think Pope Bendict XVI agrees, as well as many high-ranking clergy in the CDF and the CDWDS) that experiencing or knowing the E.F. of the Mass results in a deeper and more accurate understanding of the O.F. of the Mass, because the two are simply two forms of the one Roman Rite. In other words, the O.F. of the Mass can only be properly understood in continuity with the E.F. Where things have changed (prayers or gestures or rubrics), there should not be (or have been) a change of substance or theology, only form.

That’s why, in my book on the new translation of the Ordinary Form, I freely quote from pre-Vatican II documents regarding participation in the liturgy; I have an appendix with a large excerpt from Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei. The book on the prayers of the priest will draw on the E.F. prayers, as I mentioned before, to give the O.F. prayers the proper doctrinal, theological, and spiritual context.

• more clearly emphasize the Holy and Perpetual Sacrifice of our Lord,
• strike what I am convinced is a much better balance of Divine Justice vs. Divine Mercy than the OF Prayers, and
• that they present anew the rich liturgical patrimony of our Catholic heritage, which the OF Prayers in substantial measure either unintentionally ignored or intentionally excised.

Those are good observations.

I am certain that once more and more Catholics truly understand our rich liturgical patrimony available in the EF Liturgy, the better and more deeply they will be able to truly and more actively participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. That, in turn, will truly accelerate the “new springtime”…

I agree completely. But I also acknowledge that the E.F. of the Mass is still in need of an authentic and organic reform according to the mind of the Church as expressed in the Council documents, especially Sacrosanctum Concilium.

 

[palmas85]

He also preaches about love and mercy.

Yes, He does speak quite forcefully about love and mercy, too.

No doubt. In many less than obscure passages he speaks about the great love which He has for each of us, too.

Indeed, this is one of the Church’s constant teachings.

Mankind, because of our fallen state, does not deserve Heaven. Yet, in the very beginning of Sacred Scripture, we see the work of God’s infinite mercy and love by promising us a redeemer. Because of our sins, Mankind deserves Hell. In fact, Justice demands it. There is nothing that we can do of ourselves that can gain Heaven for us. Jesus, in the infinite Mercy and Love of God, however, stands before us not as a judge but as an advocate, invoking His infinite supply of Mercy to save our souls. The flaming sword is sheathed; the Mercy of Christ saves us from the fires of Hell. And to what is all of this based on? The infinite Love of God. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Mercy trumps Justice. While we deserve Hell we can claim Heaven by being faithful to Christ. And how do we remain faithful to Christ? By obeying His commandments. On the title page of my mom’s 1953 missal is a picture of Christ crucified. Underneath is the line "Greater love than this, no man hath." Is it really possible to “overemphasize” this?

Christ to Saint Margaret Mary: “Sinners shall find in my Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy.”

Christ to Saint Faustina: Even the most
hardened sinner, if he recites this Chaplet even once, will
receive grace from My Infinite Mercy. I want the whole world to
know My Infinite Mercy. I want to give unimaginable graces to
those who trust in My Mercy…"

And who is being presumptuous here? Consider that "the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you."

If you wish to conceive of the figure of Christ as a Byzantine figure with knotted brows, stiffened sinew, and hand raised in condemnation then that is your privilege. For myself, I trust in the One who cured the sick, pitied the lost, forgave sinners like myself, gave Himself for me and the whole world because “*greater love than this, no man hath,”
*, comes to me every mass in the Most Holy Eucharist, forgives my sins in the sacrament of penance and who pours out His Mercy from His bloodied Sacred Heart. I hope to know true contrition for my sins so that I may worthily and sincerely say, "Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner." Are you telling me that it’s still possible to “overemphasize” Christ’s Love and Mercy?

Hi Tim:sad_bye:

I hate to bring this up, but you are of course aware of the judgements that await you after death, are you not? Two of them, the Particular and the General.

You do know who the Judge of those two will be don’t you Tim?

I hope so.

And yes it is possible to overemphasize the mercy and love of Christ. We can become blinded by it and start to expect that we will be saved, expect that Christ will save us no matter what we do no matter what we say no matter what we think. All we have to do is accept Christ and in so doing we guarantee our own salvation. We cannot lose it because it is a gift freely given by God

Martin Luther believed that. Many if not most Protestants still believe it.

The Catholic Church however does not teach it and never has.

As for mr, I do not see Christ as some Byzantine figure with knotted brows, stiffened sinew, and hand raised in condemnation:thumbsup:, although it is a colorful description. But neither do I view him as some wimpy, emasculated, sugar coated, Mr Rodgers who automatically forgive all who sin against him.

I view Christ as the Savior of the World. One who came to offer salvation to all. Offer, Tim, offer salvation.

Not guarantee it.

In fact the constant teaching of the Church is that Christ made possible salvation for all, but that not all would merit or acheive salvation.

That point and the personal responsibility that we have for our sins is routinely glossed over or ignored completely in many if not most sermons that we hear these days in non Traditional Masses. I know that there are Ordinary Form Masses where sin and personal responsibility are mentioned. in homilies.

I just haven’t heard many of them in the past forty years. And I think that is one of the things that has led directly to the overemphasis on love above all in our sermons today and in the belief that many today have concerning it…