Why No Last Gospel in N.O. Mass?

[bpbasilphx]

\Your insight on Pius V doesn’t apply. He did not authorize the creation of a new Missal.\

Then why in Quo primum did he specially use the words “this new rite” to describe the Missal he promulgated?

 

[peary1]

The reality is that there exist Protestant, (Swedish Lutherans, Anglicans and others) who use liturgies that look externally very close to the EF yet the theology is very Protestant. If we rejet a liturgy based on what and how Protestants mimic the Catholic Church, we have to eject the EF, because some Protestants use it.

Yeah, but they are not authentic Liturgy! Mimic-ing a liturgy does not make authentic liturgy.

 

[giuseppeTO]

\Your insight on Pius V doesn’t apply. He did not authorize the creation of a new Missal.\

Then why in Quo primum did he specially use the words “this new rite” to describe the Missal he promulgated?

… Because, admittedly, there were changes.

 

[Filioque]

Yeah, but they are not authentic Liturgy! Mimic-ing a liturgy does not make authentic liturgy.

The point is not if the Lutheran or Anglican liturgies are authentic. The reality is the Anglo Catholics translated the Missale Romanum of Pope St. Pius V. They even included those aspects of the missal that did not pertain to the Mass directly, the Vesting prayers, preparation for Mass, Blessing of Holy Water, the Conscration of a Chalice and Paten.

They also translated the Rituale Romanum into English. So based on the charges that the NOM is used by Protestants, and is therefore not Catholic, we need to drop the Missal or Pope St. Pius V and all successors, because Anglicans (who are Protestants) use it. If they are comfortable using it, then it must be a bad rite.

The reality is that both the NOM and the MR are Catholic. Both rites can be abused, and both rites are used by Protestants. There are any number of abuses that took place prior to the Council, just as there are abuses that have occured since Vatican II.

 

[malphono]

Both rites can be abused, and both rites are used by Protestants. There are any number of abuses that took place prior to the Council, just as there are abuses that have occured since Vatican II.

Yes but … what are called “abuses” in the pre-conciliar EF are not quite the same as have been seen in the post-conciliar OF. The former were more liturgical sloppiness than truly intentional abuses, whereas the latter are more intentional “variations” (which is a kind euphemism) than anything else. (Before anyone gets the wrong idea and jumps down my throat for slamming the OF, notice the use of the word “more” in both clauses.)

As for Protestants using the EF, I am aware of are the Anglo-Catholics (those using the “English Missal”) and they have always been few in number. In other words they are the exception rather than the rule and, (for the most part, at least), those folk are quite orthodox in belief. Yes, there are also what I’ll call the “liturgical Lutherans” but their usage was never quite that of the “English Missal” and their orthodoxy is much more questionable.

 

[Filioque]

Yes but … what are called “abuses” in the pre-conciliar EF are not quite the same as have been seen in the post-conciliar OF. The former were more liturgical sloppiness than truly intentional abuses, whereas the latter are more intentional “variations” (which is a kind euphemism) than anything else. (Before anyone gets the wrong idea and jumps down my throat for slamming the OF, notice the use of the word “more” in both clauses.)

As for Protestants using the EF, I am aware of are the Anglo-Catholics (those using the “English Missal”) and they have always been few in number. In other words they are the exception rather than the rule and, (for the most part, at least), those folk are quite orthodox in belief. Yes, there are also what I’ll call the “liturgical Lutherans” but their usage was never quite that of the “English Missal” and their orthodoxy is much more questionable.

Don’t know that I’d say the Anglo-Catholic Missal Mass folks are what I’d call “orthodox” I know several Missal Mass Anglican clergy, and they span the theological waters. One informed me that at Requiem Masses he announces prior to the service that all baptized Christians are welcome to receive communion, Catholics will recognize the service as a Mass like the one they knew before Vatican II, but in English, and others will be used to a different type of service. He then goes on to instruct the congregations that it does not matter if you call it a Mass, the Lord’s Supper, a Communion Service, that since we are all christians, we are all welcome to the table of the Lord, regardless of our personal beliefs. I’ve found this latitude fairly common among the Anglo-Catholics I know. They may hold some aspects of Catholic belief, but allow for and accept just about anything except for women “priests” Although I do know a couple of English Missal folk who do have women “priests” who use the English Missal when they visit the (non-TAC) Anglican parishes.

By in large the Liturgical Lutherans outside of Sweden are all over the map I agree. However there are a few recently established (in the past 40-50 years) Lutheran Monastic communities who use either the NO or the TLM, with Gregorian Chant.

Although I am a staunch supporter and attend the EF, and Eastern RItes, with a rare appearance at the OF if I can’t assist at the others, I have come to see that many of the arguments against the OF as it was promulgated are not valid, but rather reflect the abuses. I don’t really think we can blame the OF for that as much as the Bishops and Clergy who went wild and chased after the false ideas of the “Love Generation” and carried it over to the Church. The same folks who threw out the EF also tossed out the rubrics for the OF. They were respectors of no-law.

 

[malphono]

I don’t really think we can blame the OF for that as much as the Bishops and Clergy who went wild and chased after the false ideas of the “Love Generation” and carried it over to the Church. The same folks who threw out the EF also tossed out the rubrics for the OF. They were respectors of no-law.

Yes and there you have it in a nutshell. It’s not (and never was) the OF per-se but the interpreters (if I may use the term loosely) of same. The children of the "spirit of Vatican II) (ugh). They did not, and to this day do not, respect anything beyond the touch-feely “love generation” tripe which was from their mantra from the start. (The infamous catch-all phrase “pastoral value” from another [thread=6088135]thread[/thread] come to mind here.) It amazes me that there are those who still persist. Those misguided “interpreters” of the OF have certainly made their mark, and I wonder if that mark can be expunged. But I suppose hope springs eternal…

 

[ProVobis]

\Your insight on Pius V doesn’t apply. He did not authorize the creation of a new Missal.\

Then why in Quo primum did he specially use the words “this new rite” to describe the Missal he promulgated?

Then he violated Trent:

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

 

[Filioque]

Yes and there you have it in a nutshell. It’s not (and never was) the OF per-se but the interpreters (if I may use the term loosely) of same. The children of the "spirit of Vatican II) (ugh). They did not, and to this day do not, respect anything beyond the touch-feely “love generation” tripe which was from their mantra from the start. (The infamous catch-all phrase “pastoral value” from another [thread=6088135]thread[/thread] come to mind here.) It amazes me that there are those who still persist. Those misguided “interpreters” of the OF have certainly made their mark, and I wonder if that mark can be expunged. But I suppose hope springs eternal…

Well it is quite clear to me, since I live in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, a place where the Cardinal Archbishop’s take on Liturgy seems far from what the last Two Popes, (I really think the last four) have encouraged, and mandated the liturgical life of parishes is quite varied.

The local parish (where I am registered) has an evening Mass on Sundays, (The only one I have attened there) which I don’t really care for. If I liked piano bars, it would be my cup of tea. Only the Cantor and his piano can be heard during any singing. Just fifteen minutes away however is a parish that follows the rubrics. The new (3 yrs) Pastor wears a cassock, he also has trained the congregation on how to sing the Gregorian Ordinary (Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei) as well as other hymns. His parish has a group of homosexuals who attend, but they are all involved in Courage, a Catholic support group that encourages homosexuals to live a celebate life in accordance to the Moral teachings of the Church. Confessions are heard at one’s request and from 3-6 every Saturday, before Mass, and they have Adoration one day a week, which is well attended.

This same parish has the tabernacle in the original position from prior to Vatican II, and while the altar is pulled forward there is still a predella in front so Mass can be offered either versus populum or Eastward. The altar rail is intact, most receive kneeling and on the tounge. The only problem is that there are so many people from other parishes who come to Mass, Exposition and the Wednesday night Our Lady of Perpetual Help Novina, that they have had to add Masses. The pastor and I have discussed the possiblity of adding an EF Mass, however he would need to swap out the currently over crowded Masses. This post Vatican II priest already uses the old Ritual for the blessing of Holy Water, Homes, and other long forgotten blessings that many who have been ordained after VII never learned.

Most spectacular is that there is a sizable group of Seminarians from the Archdiocese who put up with the instruction at St. John’s Seminary come to him and a circle of priests who “re-educate” and guide them, giving them a supply of Traditional Theology textbooks to form them according to Catholic Standards of Theology.

From what I have heard, the Cardinal is quite taken aback that this is not the only parish that is returning to a more orthodox litugical praxis and moral/dogmatic stance.

Where others are cutting back, parishes like these, even in Los Angeles, cannot be stopped or shut down… A sign, we can hope that in the next year or so when the Cardinal has more time to reflect on his life in retirement of what is to come in Los Angeles. Rather than chasing ghosts of the past, we need to support such efforts with our prayers, as we stand up for Authentically Catholic teaching and liturgy, OF or EF.

 

[AJV]

Then he violated Trent:

Not to be impertinent, but he’s violating Trent as you interpret the canon. The way that the canon has been interpreted through the praxis of the Church in the past 4 centuries would say otherwise, as is the meaning given in, for example, the Rituale.

 

[pnewton]

Nobody answered earlier. What part of the first book of John does anyone think is offensive to Protestants?

 

[Spirithound]

Yes but … what are called “abuses” in the pre-conciliar EF are not quite the same as have been seen in the post-conciliar OF. The former were more liturgical sloppiness than truly intentional abuses, whereas the latter are more intentional “variations” than anything else.

I am of the post-VII era, but I have read posters in other threads saying that they saw priests rush through the EF (then the OF) so fast that the server would barely have a chance to make his responses. That, in that poster’s view was an intentional “variation”, to use your euphemism.

 

[malphono]

I am of the post-VII era, but I have read posters in other threads saying that they saw priests rush through the EF (then the OF) so fast that the server would barely have a chance to make his responses. That, in that poster’s view was an intentional “variation”, to use your euphemism.

What I’ll call the “15-minuite special” has been around for ages, first in the EF and then it found a new home in the OF. (The Eastern and Oriental liturgies are similarly affected, but usually to a lesser degree.) The funny part is there are those who actually like them. I never understood why, but they do. Apparently some people, clergy and laity alike, are in an all-fired hurry.

Anyway, as much as I am disgusted by the practice, and as much as I rail against it, I do not believe it falls into the category intentional “variation” abuse. It’s just plain sloppy liturgy. While I most certainly would never defend the practice, I have to say it’s not the same as those things which involve intentional variation of the text, rubrics, etc.