Was the Novus Ordo Mass an infallible declaration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FNDRB58
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone interested in the development of the Novus Ordo Missae should read the scholarly book written by the man most responsible for its composition and development. It’s meticulously documented and outlines exactly how, when, and even where the liturgy of the Consilium was produced.
 
AlexV said:
… when, and even where the liturgy of the Consilium was produced.
Click to expand...
IIRC, AB had already implemented some major liturgical reforms under Popes Pius XII and John XXIII. Those following made in the 60’s became more visible perhaps because they were made in the vernacular.
 
AlexV said:
Anyone interested in the development of the Novus Ordo Missae should read the scholarly book written by the man most responsible for its composition and development. It’s meticulously documented and outlines exactly how, when, and even where the liturgy of the Consilium was produced.
Click to expand...
Maybe. I have no desire to read it, since I do not have any problem whatsoever with the OF as it is celebrated today. Maybe a traditionist would find it valuable in casting aspersions and furthering their cause.

I doubt that the Magisterium has a problem with the liturgy either, or we would have seen efforts to change it over these 52 years. Vociferous contenders will do little to change it from the pews. It must come, if at all, from within the hierarchy.
 
It’s not the fault of so-called traditionalists if certain things are historical facts.
 
AlexV said:
It’s not the fault of so-called traditionalists if certain things are historical facts.
Click to expand...
Alex, this is a very moot point and not worth the paper it’s written on to debate a done deal. Historical facts do not change the present reality. As should be evident to all with eyes to see, if there is a problem with the liturgy, it would have been revised by now. You can beat a path to everyone’s door with the sad tale of Protestant infiltration, but it will not change a thing.

It will just foment disunity to squabble over a liturgy that one is unable to change to one’s liking. The OP is finding the same difficulty.
 
Well, for starters, if everything were just fine with the Roman liturgy, we wouldn’t have seen the events that led to Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. The 1970 Missale was explicitly meant to replace previous ones…the current situation with two forms of the Roman Rite was not envisaged…and would not have happened…if everything were just fine.
 
AlexV said:
Well, for starters, if everything were just fine with the Roman liturgy, we wouldn’t have seen the events that led to Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. The 1970 Missale was explicitly meant to replace previous ones…the current situation with two forms of the Roman Rite was not envisaged…and would not have happened…if everything were just fine.
Click to expand...
:sleep: Then YOU go change it.
 
Sirach2 said:
Maybe. I have no desire to read it, since I do not have any problem whatsoever with the OF as it is celebrated today. Maybe a traditionist would find it valuable in casting aspersions and furthering their cause.

I doubt that the Magisterium has a problem with the liturgy either, or we would have seen efforts to change it over these 52 years. Vociferous contenders will do little to change it from the pews. It must come, if at all, from within the hierarchy.
Click to expand...
I’m OK with today’s liturgy as well. But I have read “From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours” by Stanislaus Campbell, and it’s a fascinating read on how the LOTH as we now know it came about. An exercise in consensus-building, and also “test driving” by various communities. It was also the work of AB. I imagine the Mass was reformed in a similar manner.

The author is quite critical of the LOTH, but mostly for reasons he still finds it too “monastic” in structure, and thinks that the secular LOTH should have been different and perhaps even more radically changed than it was, and a separate more “traditional” monastic rite retained.

I quite disagree with him; in fact the “traditional” monastic rite still exists and is used in both pre- and post- conciliar versions, and the LOTH is sufficiently different yet structurally similar, though many “monastic” elements were retained, at least optionally. But it’s still a fascinating read.

But then the reform of the Divine Office is material for another thread (FWIW I think the LOTH is just fine, well-adapted to role of clergy in the modern Church, not much less traditional than the 1960 Breviary, and for those who want a truly traditional Divine Office, the Monastic rite is still licit in both pre- and post VII versions… but I digress).
 
OraLabora said:
I’m OK with today’s liturgy as well. But I have read “From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours” by Stanislaus Campbell, and it’s a fascinating read on how the LOTH as we now know it came about. An exercise in consensus-building, and also “test driving” by various communities. It was also the work of AB. I imagine the Mass was reformed in a similar manner.

The author is quite critical of the LOTH, but mostly for reasons he still finds it too “monastic” in structure, and thinks that the secular LOTH should have been different and perhaps even more radically changed than it was, and a separate more “traditional” monastic rite retained.

I quite disagree with him; in fact the “traditional” monastic rite still exists and is used in both pre- and post- conciliar versions, and the LOTH is sufficiently different yet structurally similar, though many “monastic” elements were retained, at least optionally. But it’s still a fascinating read.

But then the reform of the Divine Office is material for another thread (FWIW I think the LOTH is just fine, well-adapted to role of clergy in the modern Church, not much less traditional than the 1960 Breviary, and for those who want a truly traditional Divine Office, the Monastic rite is still licit in both pre- and post VII versions… but I digress).
Click to expand...
I know a few who don’t accept any liturgical reforms made after 1948, the year which AB was hired to reform the liturgy. It would be monumental for them just to accept the EF.
 
Brendan_64 said:
We know exactly what the Council fathers voted for. What they voted for is contained within what is written in the documents of the Council.

We know what is written in Sacrosanctum Concilium regarding the liturgy. This is what the Council fathers voted for, and Masses today are bound to comply with the letter of this document. Sadly some do not, and some priests have since decided to go several steps beyond what Vatican II established. Read Concilium to see exactly what was voted for in terms of liturgical changes. I think that every Catholic who is interested in the Liturgy ought to read Sacrosanctum Concilium
Click to expand...
The only elements of the OF that aren’t explicitly called for in SC are the priest facing the people and the multiple anaphora texts. But, given that every pope since HH Paul VI has said masses facing the people in locations other than St. Peters’ Basillica (where east is toward the people), and that the rubrics do not forbid nor require it, it is not an issue for Rome.
 
SC didn’t explicitly call for rewriting the vast majority of the orations of the Missal.
 
AlexV said:
SC didn’t explicitly call for rewriting the vast majority of the orations of the Missal.
Click to expand...
Actually, it does.

SC, ¶51:
  1. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.
 
That quote doesn’t say a thing about rewriting the vast majority of the orations of the Missal.
 
Aramis said:
Actually, it does.

SC, ¶51:
  1. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.
Click to expand...
One wonders why this wasn’t immediately done with the 1965 Missal, which instead did away with Psalm 42 and the first verses of St. John’s Gospel, not to mention eventual removal of Psalm 25/26 and other parts of the Mass (Sancta Sanctorum et al) based on scripture.
 
Well, BR has 150 psalms and LOTH 147 (with many missing verses from some of those 147), so go figure.
 
AlexV said:
Well, BR has 150 psalms and LOTH 147 (with many missing verses from some of those 147), so go figure.
Click to expand...
BR also undid many traditions in its own right.

I use an antiphonary for the LOTH incidentally, that includes the missing verses (but not the missing psalms), in brackets. And my French LOTH has them in brackets in the Lenten/Easter volume.

No Office is 100% perfect, at best they are attempts by man to reach out to God, and have God’s Word brought down to them but man’s communication methods being imperfect, so too will the breviaries designed by man be imperfect. The LOTH has many imperfections, but is the official prayer of the Church, and is particularly well suited to lay use, something BR was not and the Monastic Divine Office even less. To me, bringing in the laity trumps the loss of three cursing psalms. I’d rather miss out on those three psalms than try to pray an overly heavy Office that will make me miss even more psalms on a regular basis.

In any event I occasionally use my abbey’s monastic schema that has all the cursing psalms and verses, so I’m not a complete stranger to them.

I think the LOTH is fine, but that’s just me. Enough thread drift, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
 
FNDRB58 said:
During Vatican II , was the new order of the Mass infallibly defined or declared?

I am debating a fellow Catholic who will only attend the Latin Mass because though she admits that the new Mass is valid, she says it is of a “lesser” form or is less efficacious. I know this is false and asked her by what authority can she say this. I told her that the Holy
Spirit would not guide the Church to develop a new form that is inferior to which she sites instances in history when popes and councils taught heresy, etc.
Click to expand...
No, it was not infallibly declared. As far as I know, it’s pastoral in nature. This is part of the basis for some groups, such as the SSPX, to reject its validity, in part or in its entirety.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top