TRADITIONAL cf. Novus Ordo

[EENS]

I haven’t followed this entire thread, but one major thing that the Novus Ordo does is in the Consecration of the wine, changing: “Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, novi et aeterni Testamanti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.” This means: “For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins.” Someone has already addressed the fact that “pro vobis” (for many) is translated “for all.” However, the bigger problem is “the mystery of faith” is taken out of the Consecration. Then, immediately after, is said: “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith.” All say, “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” or like response. It is clear that what follows is the new “mystery of faith.” The Priest says “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith,” and then this new “mystery of faith” is proclaimed. However, the TRUE mystery of faith is the Eucharist. This is a major problem that must be corrected. God bless.

 

[Marie]

Joe Omlor:

Fr Somerville is not a SSPX priest.

The point is not so much weather said Fr Somerville is or is not an SSPX priest. The problem is (1.)no one can seem to find mention of him anywhere except on SSPX websites.(2.) He is not a Bishop nor could he ever have been in charge of anything. He may have worked somewhere on staff but that’s nothing to hang your faith hat on. He is used as a big whip by dissenters which shows their agenda is not for truth and full disclosure and never has been. The ICEL does have problems by the boatload. The church has and is addressing them. As usual the dissenting groups jump on it to use in the war against the church. Quoteing a lowly Father So and So is more of the usual stuff one expects from SSPX. If they have worthy information why do they use obscure sources which are meaningless?

ICEL

ICEL was established on October 17, 1963 as an unincorporated association of bishops. In 1967, ICEL was incorporated in Canada. The founding bishops represented the following conferences: Australia, Canada, England and Wales, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Scotland, South Africa, and the United States. An eleventh “member” conference, the Philippines, joined ICEL in 1967. Each member conference appoints a bishop representative to the Episcopal Board of ICEL.

If one wishes to find truth one should read from credible sources.
Pax,
Marie

 

[Prometheum_x]

dcs:

Latin is more holy in and of itself – it is the sacred language of the Church. It is more holy the same way that ancient Greek is more holy to the Orthodox, the way that Hebrew is to the Jews, the way that classical Arabic is to the Mussulmans. It’s not a “magic potion”; it’s the language of the angels.

It’s not necessary for the laity to understand perfectly all the prayers of the Missal. I don’t think many people do, anyway, even if they are in the mother tongue.

Latin is certainly not holy in and of itself. It is only a sacred language because it is used for sacred things. What is the explanation for stating that it is “the language of the angels”?

Even if Latin were holy in and of itself, it is not the sacred language of the Church. It is only the sacred language of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. It is not the language of the Byzantine, Maronite, or Armenian Catholics.

We should not engage in thinking that somehow the Latin rite is superior to the other Catholic rites.

 

[otm]

Veritas: You say that the Tridentine Mass is the historical Mass of the Church; I hope you meant a historical Mass, as it was and is by no means the only historical Mass.

2nd: You do not need to, nor are you supposed to understand the prayers: right, its magic! I hope you are not serious about that statement; or else, you are equating the main worship service of the Church with something done by the illuminati, while the rest of the peons just attend. It is a bit hard to worship well when you don’t know what is going on.

3rd: The Tridentine Maas is distinguished by length: 1 1/2 to 2 hours long. Maybe that is what some priests are doing now. But unless they are celebrating a solemn high Mass, it shouldn’t be much more than an hour. Or perhaps the choir is singing some really complex repetetive songs. The Ordo Missae (anyone care to use its correct name, instead of the offhand name given by the Trads?) should take about the same amount of time, given the fact that there are three readings in the Liturgy of the Word, rtather than two; the time element is largely a product of the choir"s choice of music.

4th: a lot more altar servers, 10 to 15. This has little or nothing to do with the Tridentien Mass. I served at numerous high Masses as a boy, and we only had two. At a solemn high Mass, there were two servers, a thurifer, a master of ceremonies, and six candle bearers. That makes 10. At a low Mass or high Mass (no singing or singing), there were two altar servers. Period. Must be a new invention.

5th: Communicants go up en masse. What, hasn’t anyone there heard of ushers? Sounds like a rather undignified way to approach Communion, especially for a Mass which is touted as being more solemn and dignified.

Jordan: You speak about the Bishops, refering to them as men who are fluent in classical languages. Not only do I disagree with you, but I suspect the Pope would too, as it was he who made a joke about the fact that almost none of the Cardinals and Bishops any longer converse in Latin.

We got the Indult because of the stiff knecked opposition of the Traditionalists, and in particular one French bishop. It is sad to see us go back to a multiplicity of rites; it causes devisivness. Better to correct the liturgical abuses of the Ordo Missae and have everyone on the same page. IMO the Tridentine indult also makes a subtle promotion of the idea that holiness is a feeling. Almost all of what I hear from those who want it is that it is so much holier, awsome, etc., etc. What they are really getting at, I suspect, is an issue of God Transcendent vs. God Imminent, and they only feel comfortable with the Transcendent.

 

[deogratias]

Marie - is the National Catholic Register a reliable source?

One of the original members of ICEL… founded in 1964, … Fr. Stephen Somerville, a priest of the Archdiocese of Toronto, said he now regrets many of the changes the commission made during his tenure. He said he was “distressed” from the beginning of his tenure at ICEL by “revolutionary spirits” and a “linguistic agenda.” “We found subtle ways of changing the words and dignifying these changes with decent, hopeful, positive expressions,” Fr. Somerville said. “It was a revolution … we were literally changing the faith of the Catholic Church because we were changing the way it prays.”
NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER,
Liturgical Translations Face Vatican Overhaul,
by Dan McGuire, pp. 1 & 7, Jan. 23-29, 2000

 

[otm]

I would consider the National Catholic Register to be very reliable. I find it to report the facts without much in the way of diatribe, and as much as I have read, I consider it true to the Magisterium.

Personally, I wouldn’t wrap a dead fish in the National Catholic Reporter; I respect fish too much. And I have little patience with the Wanderer; although it can be on point, it is too polemical, and too conservative. I have a real problem with those who are true to the Magisterium but somewhere between very conservative and ultra conservaitve; they consider everyonje to their left a liberal, and condemn the moderates, who are true to the Magisterium with the dissenters, who aren’t true.

 

[aByzantineCatho]

Here is the difference:
http://www.unavoce.org/ambrosian_rite14.jpg

Verses this:

http://www.flsouthern.edu/Stdntlife/campmin/Images/massaltar.jpg

 

[deogratias]

OTM - my question was to Marie who doubted the ICEL and said we should look to reliable sources. I too consider it very reliable and I agree with you on the fish wraping of that other “Catholic?” publication.

I also consider the Wanderer to be conservative but not TOO conservative, funny how in another thread Traditionalists thought it too liberal LOL

 

[deogratias]

A Byz

 

[MrS]

For those with access to a good Catholic Bookstore, I would recommend two books on this subject. The first and most discomforting is by Michael Davies - Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II. In less than 100 pages, he lays out a well documented history of what has changed since VaticanII with regards to our liturgy and how protestant it has become. Even after reading this twice I reject the label of being a Traditionalist. Instead I think (and hope) I am trying to be a Catholic Catholic, and not a Protestant Catholic. (Needless to say, when I “reverted” after 7 children and 25 years out of the Church, I hardly recognized what God was calling me back to).

The second book, aboiut 30 pages, is a concise reference called The Problems With The Prayers of The Modern Mass, by Rev, Anthony Cekada.

Herein lies a point that is not often addressed between Traditionalists and "anti"Traditionalists. It is not the Latin…not the incense, not the robes… it is the prayer changes and prayer eliminations that are undermining our greatest prayer - The Mass.

Take a serious look at what the changes are as presented in these two works. Take a serious look at who and how these changes came about. Then take a look at the “fruits” of these changes.

Then you will ask your pastor, your bishop, your fellow parishioners to offer a truly reverent and holy Mass.

My quote is from Fr Groeschel: “Far be it from me to think that God thinks like I think.”

Luke 17:9-10

MrS

 

[Catholic_Eagle]

A byzantinecatholic,

The picture you posted up their is not The Traditional Latin Mass. That picture is of the Traditional Ambrosian Mass. They are very similar but the Ambrosian Mass has 12 Kyrie Eleison,instead of the Roman version.Also the priest has his hands outstretched in the picture which is not normal for theTLM.

 

[Catholic_Eagle]

How does post pictures in his post like abyzantinecatho did? Can anyone tell me how to do that?

 

[ravenonthecross]

Conversely, also using the Novus Ordo missal, a few miles away is St. Agnes, a parish that has a “high mass” in Latin that would be difficult to tell the difference from the Tridentine high mass. The priest faces the altar, only altar boys are used, only priests and deacons give out communion on the rail on the tounge only.
The Second Vatican council never meant to have all these different options, and have this confusion, and my guess is St. Agnes is far closer to what the Concul had in mind that St. Joan of Arc parish.

Yeah, IT is exactly What Vatican II called for. The only additional option was the permission of the vernacular of those parts of the mass such as the priestly prayers, were permitted in the vernacular, whilst, the Dominus Vobiscum, the Gloria, the Credo, Sanctus, The Agnus Dei, the Pater Noster, And the Kyrie were to be retained in their Latin forms, and the Kyrie in its Greek form. Ergo, an English mass of the Novus Ordo is mandated to have Gregorian Chant and at least some or all of what I mentioned like the Kyrie, and the Sanctus to be retained in Latin, The Priest & the faithful together facing Christ present in the Tabernacle on the Alter, with a contigent of Alter Boys ((The permission of females, runs counter to tradition, and was only granted by JPII after years and years of Modernist progressive heretics badgering and heckling him, until he relented under pressure to permit this aberration. Sidenote: It was male-only do to the fact that Altar servers were the main staple recruiting ground for priest for centuries, and before seminaries, priests were trained to become priests by first serving as altar boys.))]
In addition, architecture would remain it’s traditional style ie. Pre-modernistic----architecture which entails stained glass, Statues, Icons, gold adornment, and ornate painting, and the church outline in a cruciform-like shape. All this plus this quote from this knowledgeable poster, constitutes an orthodox mass envisioned by Vatican II. This plus a good orthodox Priest and Catechism, which teach, and edify all of the Catholic Faith including her doctrines opposing Euthanasia, Abortion, Contraception, “Gay-Marriage”(With is not marriage at all, but a distortion of God’s divinely-instituted covenant of love between a man and wife under our Blessed Lord’s providence), the aborting of embryos for stem cell research, the affirmation of human dignity and rights, the primacy of truth that The Catholic Church retains, holds, and always will hold under the protection of the Holy Ghost, the fullness of the Truth that Christ has revealed to his people through his Holy Catholic Church as expressed through the means of Sacred Scripture—that is the Holy Bible----, Sacred tradition, Dogma, Doctrine, and infallible dogmatic decrees of The Church’s Ecumenical councils,and The pope when decree dogma Ex Cathedra. These Teachings plus All other teachings taught by Holy Catholic Faith, and protected by the Holy Catholic Church via the guardianship of Christ’s Truth within her by the Holy Ghost (aka. the Holy Spirit) are not only all to which the faithful are bound to by our Blessed Lord, but also the foundations for an orthodox parish, priest, and society.

 

[stmaria]

ravenonthecross;2573588]Yeah, IT is exactly What Vatican II called for. The only additional option was the permission of the vernacular of those parts of the mass such as the priestly prayers, were permitted in the vernacular, whilst, the Dominus Vobiscum, the Gloria, the Credo, Sanctus, The Agnus Dei, the Pater Noster, And the Kyrie were to be retained in their Latin forms, and the Kyrie in its Greek form.

Vatican II Constitution of the Liturgy] called for Latin to be retained with only a few prayers, and the epistle and Gospel in the vernacular.
All of the radical changes were made by the Consilium formed by Pope Paul to implement the Constitution. They did go well beyond what the Council called for. The secretary of the Consilium was Father Annibl Bugnini. He was most responsible for the changes along with a small group of priests and theologians. He wrote a book about the Consilium. Here are some excerpts from his book Reform of the Liturgy .

Pg 110 “ It cannot be denied that the principle, approved by the Council, of using the vernaculars was given a broad interpretation”

Pg 343 The Roman Canon was the most sensitive and complex problem of all. On the one hand, respect for this prayer made the group hesitate to touch it…It was proposed to experiment with three revised forms on the Roman Canon” footnote 5 “some closed ranks against the slightest revision…all asked for the addition of a new Canon to the existing Roman Canon”

Pg 168 The secretariat {Bugnini} was also very busy with the translation of the Roman Canon. The Holy Father had asked that the translations be “faithful and literal,” but in fact practically no liturgical commission was observing this criterion.”

Pg114 “But how difficult it is to take an ancient building in hand and make it functional and habitable without changing the structure. Peripheral alterations are not enough; there had to be a radical restoration”

Pg 44 “Signs and rites are likely to become incrusted by time, that is, to grow old and outmoded. They may therefore need to be revised and updated, so that the expression of the Church’s worship may reflect the perennial youthfulness of the Church itself…the Liturgy feeds the Church’s life; it must therefore remain dynamic and not be allowed to stagnate or become petrified “

Other changes such as priest facing the people, removal of the tabernacle,communion in the hand, Eucharist ministers etc. were intorduced, in various stages, to the Mass between 1964-1970.
.

Pg 182 Pope Paul VI address to the Consilium October 14, 1968 …conferences of Bishops going too far on their own initiative in liturgical matters…experimentation and the introduction of rites that are flagrantly in conflict with the norms established by the Church…even greater worry is the behavior of those who contend that liturgical worship be stripped of its sacred character”

 

[elzoro]

I tried the Ask an Apologist but the queue is full, so meanwhile…

Please could someone succinctly outline the main differences/changes wrought by Vatican ll, esp. with ref. to the Mass - and what are the big objections (to some)? Why?

Oh yes and what’s the Tridentine Mass? (For those with only three teeth?! Ok just joking. I really do want to know!)

Thankyou

The differences between the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo are many and varied,and it’s beyond just the externals that have been mentioned here. The TEXTS are different as well. May I recommend "Vatican II - Part 4 of 4 - The Liturgical Revolution " by Michael Davies. An EXCELLENT book that tells all w/o apology. The Novus Ordo is valid, but sooooo different, as the Holy Father has said. Try this site. The book is the last one when you scroll down. Pax tecum.

keepthefaith.org/searchResult_the_mass.aspx?CategoryID=968