Wonderful Mass

[zorrox]

In our parish this last feast of St Andrew we had all the Ordinary sung in Latin, Missa Simplex, the proper all sung in gregorian plainchant according to the Liber Usualis, also in Latin. Candles and incence and bells.
A person teleported from before the reform of the liturgy would hardly have spotted a difference from the traditional Mass.

At the place of the prayer of the faithful the schola chanted in Latin prayers for the pope "Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto."and for the bishop.

Somehow I think that this is the way the (New)Mass should be offered .

 

[netmilsmom]

Somehow I think that this is the way the (New)Mass should be offered .

Our weekly Holy Mass is close to that.
When I joined the parish, I was telling our Wonderful Pastor that this is the mass of my childhood.

He said that it actually was the Holy Mass done right.
God Love him!

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

In our parish this last feast of St Andrew we had all the Ordinary sung in Latin, Missa Simplex, the proper all sung in gregorian plainchant according to the Liber Usualis, also in Latin. Candles and incence and bells.
A person teleported from before the reform of the liturgy would hardly have spotted a difference from the traditional Mass.

At the place of the prayer of the faithful the schola chanted in Latin prayers for the pope "Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto."and for the bishop.

Somehow I think that this is the way the (New)Mass should be offered .

While I think it’s wonderful that so much of Tradition was incorporated into that Mass, and commend your pastor for his obvious love for the Sacred Liturgy, I must disagree that one would not notice a difference between that particular Mass and the Traditional (Tridentine) Mass.

The Mass is about much more than mere externals. I don’t say this to discount the importance of these elements (such as chant, incense, bells, etc), because they are indeed important. But a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated as you described above is still not as beautiful as a Traditional low Mass-- celebrated with no music or incense. The reasons are many. For one, the Traditional Mass comes to us from the times of the holy fathers, as it was celebrated in that holy city of Rome in the fourth century. It was faithfully handed down with little change (any change that was made was organic and occurred over time as devotion increased) all the way up until 1962. The New Mass, by comparison, is not an organic development of the Traditional Mass, but rather the work of a group of “experts” led by Archbishop Bugnini who essentially drew up the New Mass after Vatican II. I might add that 6 protestants were invited to “observe” the writing of the New Mass, and according to Church history expert Michael Davies who spoke to one of the 6 protestants, they (the protestants) played an active role in helping to shape the New Mass. Thus, many, many elements that were “offensive” to protestants were removed from the Mass. The immemorial teaching that the Mass was first and foremost a solemn Sacrifice (which is utter blasphemy to protestant ears) was suppressed and emphasis was placed heavily on the Mass as merely the Lord’s Supper (which is the protestant notion). That’s why we see the priest using a free-standing “altar” (table) at the New Mass and facing the people. At the Traditional Mass, the priest faces Christ in the tabernacle, which is facing toward the East, in anticipation of Our Lord’s second coming. The priest offers the Perfect Sacrifice on a stone altar containing the relics of holy saints and martyrs who have offered their very lives for Christ. The new mass has no requirement for relics in the tables.

And then there are the prayers of the Traditional Mass compared to the prayers of the New Mass. Goodness, I don’t have time to get into that right now, but I’ll try to post on it later. Suffice it to say the New Mass is absolutely impoverished in that area.

I could say much more, but I’ll leave it at that for now. If you have any questions about other differences between the Traditional and New Mass, I’ll try my best to explain.

Again, I absolutely commend your pastor for taking such steps to make the Mass more sacred, but my argument is that the New Mass can only be so sacred because it is inherently and objectively inferior to the Traditional Mass, and no amount of incense can fix it.

 

[palmas85]

In our parish this last feast of St Andrew we had all the Ordinary sung in Latin, Missa Simplex, the proper all sung in gregorian plainchant according to the Liber Usualis, also in Latin. Candles and incence and bells.
**A person teleported from before the reform of the liturgy would hardly have spotted a difference from the traditional Mass.
**
At the place of the prayer of the faithful the schola chanted in Latin prayers for the pope "Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto."and for the bishop.

Somehow I think that this is the way the (New)Mass should be offered .

Yes they would have. In fact they would have spotted it from the second it started. Before it started even. Just looking at the altar now and then there is a huge noticible difference Why as soon as it started? No prayers at the foot of the Altar. From that simple act it would have been most obvious that something was different very very different. As the Mass progressed your time travelor would have been under the distinct impression that he was not at a Catholic Mass. That is how different the two are. Sorry, but using Latin here and there and Plain Chant or Gregorian Chant, doesn’t change the fact that the Mass was stripped of a lot, and in very few ways even resempbles the Traditional Mass.

I’m not saying its bad or deficient or that it is not a valid Mass. But it is not the same, and it is not even close. Even done completely in Latin, it still would not be close.

 

[zorrox]

Yes they would have. In fact they would have spotted it from the second it started. Before it started even. Just looking at the altar now and then there is a huge noticible difference Why as soon as it started? No prayers at the foot of the Altar. From that simple act it would have been most obvious that something was different very very different. As the Mass progressed your time travelor would have been under the distinct impression that he was not at a Catholic Mass. That is how different the two are. Sorry, but using Latin here and there and Plain Chant or Gregorian Chant, doesn’t change the fact that the Mass was stripped of a lot, and in very few ways even resempbles the Traditional Mass.

I’m not saying its bad or deficient or that it is not a valid Mass. But it is not the same, and it is not even close. Even done completely in Latin, it still would not be close.

I know what you mean, as I prefer the Mass according to the Missale Romanum 1962.

It’s just that now the Mass is celebrated according to the Missale Romanum of 2002 in the Church at large. The altar in our parish church still has the relics in it.

And I think that the reform or change in the liturgy would have been more accepted and perhaps even liked had the diferent parishes retained the trappings of the old Mass instead of guitars and drums and silliness.

The prayers at the foot of the altar could be said in the sacristy as in early medieval times.

What it comes down to is obedience, no one can argue that the pope has the right to change liturgical law, as he has done all over Church history, what I prefer must yield to what the pope decides as he is the Vicar of Christ. It does not always have to be the best possible thing what he decides, but what is always best for me is to obey, even if it breaks my heart, because if I do, I obey God.

And since he has not demanded anything sinful, I adore Christ in the sacrifice of the Mass and I do recieve Him on ordinary Sundays and weekdays in my ordinary Catholic parish. And He does wait for my visits to Him in the ordinary tabernacle there. I try to live my life as an ordinary Catholic and with the help of God’s grace and the sacraments attain salvation.

I doubt however that He will ask me when I meet Him: Did you adore me only in the Tridentine Mass?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

For one, the Traditional Mass comes to us from the times of the holy fathers, as it was celebrated in that holy city of Rome in the fourth century.

Rome was holy in the 4th century??? Good one!

according to Church history expert Michael Davies who spoke to one of the 6 protestants, they (the protestants) played an active role in helping to shape the New Mass.

Michael Davies is close to being a sedevacantist. He was also not there when the NO was written, so he is giving pure speculation.

Again, I absolutely commend your pastor for taking such steps to make the Mass more sacred, but my argument is that the New Mass can only be so sacred because it is inherently and objectively inferior to the Traditional Mass, and no amount of incense can fix it.

The Mass can only be so sacred??? That is the problem with you ultra-traditionalists–you refer to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as “only so sacred”. How much less sacred can the sacrifice be? It is the same sacrifice, my friend. The very same sacrifice.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Victorious]

In our parish this last feast of St Andrew we had all the Ordinary sung in Latin, Missa Simplex, the proper all sung in gregorian plainchant according to the Liber Usualis, also in Latin. Candles and incence and bells.
A person teleported from before the reform of the liturgy would hardly have spotted a difference from the traditional Mass.

At the place of the prayer of the faithful the schola chanted in Latin prayers for the pope "Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto."and for the bishop.

Somehow I think that this is the way the (New)Mass should be offered .

Wow!

Well, we didn’t have that, but what we did have this morning – from the dear old retired priest who celebrates the 7:00 a.m. Mass faithfully evern morning despite his poor health – was real, honest-to-God preaching about the Four Last Things – even including Judgment and Hell!!! You can literally go for years in this diocese never hearing about that…and as a matter of fact, I have.

 

[palmas85]

Pax tecum!

Rome was holy in the 4th century??? Good one!
Michael Davies is close to being a sedevacantist. He was also not there when the NO was written, so he is giving pure speculation.

The Mass can only be so sacred??? That is the problem with you ultra-traditionalists–you refer to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as “only so sacred”. How much less sacred can the sacrifice be? It is the same sacrifice, my friend. The very same sacrifice.

In Christ,
Rand

Actually what Davies talks about has pretty much been very well documented and is available in just about any factual reort on the actions at Vatican II. I know that many people don’t believe some of the things that happened there but no matter how hard you try you cannot change the truth it remains the truth… I actually have an advantage in that I was in High School at the time and we had to do reports on it. From newspaper articles and official Vatican reports. No internet back then They were actually very very proud of the fact that Protestants had been involved in “helping out”: very good ecumenically, or so they thought back then. One of the big aims of Vatican II was the tearing down the artificial barriers that existed between different branches of Christianity put there by man. I actually seem to remember that statement or one close to it…

Yes The sacrifice is indeed the same. The manner in which many today approach it is what is different my friend. The manner in which it is approached.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

I will not enter the Tridentine/Novus Ordo debate, as I intend to celebrate both as the need arises, should I be ordained. My only comment is that it is really refreshing to read a comment on this board in which something is done RIGHT! It gives us all a sense of hope that, in fact, all is not lost.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Pax tecum!

Rome was holy in the 4th century??? Good one!

Yes–it was and is the seat of St. Peter.

Michael Davies is close to being a sedevacantist. He was also not there when the NO was written, so he is giving pure speculation.

Perhaps you should actually read some of his writings. Davies was not anywhere close to being a sedevacantist, and he absolutely opposed that position. On the occasion of his death, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a small commentary in which he praised Davies for his defense of the Church. I have the quote in print at home, so I’ll have to come back and post it later.

The Mass can only be so sacred??? That is the problem with you ultra-traditionalists–you refer to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as “only so sacred”. How much less sacred can the sacrifice be? It is the same sacrifice, my friend. The very same sacrifice.

Obviously we are not referring to the Sacrifice offerred to the Father, as that is objectively pleasing to God. The Mass is more than just strictly the Sacrifice-- it is the prayers, the sacred atmosphere, the doctrine conveyed, etc.

 

[cathsem]

But a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated as you described above is still not as beautiful as a Traditional low Mass-- celebrated with no music or incense. The reasons are many. For one, the Traditional Mass comes to us from the times of the holy fathers, as it was celebrated in that holy city of Rome in the fourth century. It was faithfully handed down with little change (any change that was made was organic and occurred over time as devotion increased) all the way up until 1962. The New Mass, by comparison, is not an organic development of the Traditional Mass, but rather the work of a group of “experts” led by Archbishop Bugnini who essentially drew up the New Mass after Vatican II. I might add that 6 protestants were invited to “observe” the writing of the New Mass, and according to Church history expert Michael Davies who spoke to one of the 6 protestants, they (the protestants) played an active role in helping to shape the New Mass. Thus, many, many elements that were “offensive” to protestants were removed from the Mass. The immemorial teaching that the Mass was first and foremost a solemn Sacrifice (which is utter blasphemy to protestant ears) was suppressed and emphasis was placed heavily on the Mass as merely the Lord’s Supper (which is the protestant notion). That’s why we see the priest using a free-standing “altar” (table) at the New Mass and facing the people. At the Traditional Mass, the priest faces Christ in the tabernacle, which is facing toward the East, in anticipation of Our Lord’s second coming. The priest offers the Perfect Sacrifice on a stone altar containing the relics of holy saints and martyrs who have offered their very lives for Christ. The new mass has no requirement for relics in the tables.

I confess that I am a bit confused by this post. It has provoked several questions for me. First, what concrete actions did these Protestants take to water down our Catholic Faith? Where is the evidence that they actually influenced the bishops to remove some element of the Mass because it was offensive to them. Certainly their mere presence at some meetings would not do this.

Second, what is organic development in your mind? It seems that organic development was taking place throughout the early 20th century beginning with St. Pius X’s motu proprio encouraging the laity to pray the Mass, the eventual approval for missals for the laity, the growth of the dialogue Mass, etc. Combine this with the organic theological development towards resourcement (a return to biblical and patristic sources), does it not at least seem logical to argue that some elements of the Tridentine Mass were removed not to water down the faith, but to return to the earlier Roman Rite found in the fourth century? (Examples include the removal of the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Last Gospel, both of which were medieval extensions of popular piety.) Admittedly, these were organically added, but cannot they also be organically deleted so as to concentrate more on the nourishment Christ gives to His Church through His Word and its ultimate consumation in the Holy Sacrifice, where He gives us His Body and Blood. One final thought on this point: It seems that Quo Primum put the Mass under such stringent regulations that further organic development such as that which led to the adding of the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Last Gospel impossible during the 400 years between Trent and Vatican II.

Thirdly, what pray tell is the significance of the priest facing the tabernacle? I understand what then-Cardinal Ratzinger said about facing East in The Spirit of the Liturgy but, are you trying to suggest that the priest offers the sacrifice of Jesus to Jesus already present in the tabernacle. What about if the tabernacle is empty? This seems like a Trinitarian confusion to me. I’m pretty sure that the priest, through the power of the Holy Spirit, offers Jesus to the Father in the Mass.

Last note, this comment about a free-standing altar being Protestant is erroneous. It was moved away from the wall so that the priest could incense around it as I believe was done in the early Church. Mass was never meant to be celebrated facing the people (you won’t find any liturgical book saying that it has to be). Even if it is done facing the people, a priest who recognizes that he is not a game-show host should be able to make it clear that he is not offering the sacrifice TO the people, but rather ON BEHALF OF the people to the Father as a representation of the Sacrifice of Calvary in atonement for their sins. (Personally, I would like to see a return to Ad Orientam, at least more often, but I doubt that I am going to get my wish.)

 

[Victorious]

I confess that I am a bit confused by this post. It has provoked several questions for me. First, what concrete actions did these Protestants take to water down our Catholic Faith? Where is the evidence that they actually influenced the bishops to remove some element of the Mass because it was offensive to them. Certainly their mere presence at some meetings would not do this.

Note that the following is not meant to say what did happen, but what could have happened.

Since we don’t live in a vacuum, it is possible for Protestants to be an influence, whether they want to be or not. Protestant influence may creep in, for example, by way of well-meaning but misguided priests and bishops trying to tone down the Mass in order to make it more palatable to our separated brethren. This is a huge mistake, because it is not only uncharitable toward Catholics who cherish the Mass as it should be celebrated; but it also causes us to fail in our duty to present our separated brethren with a clear choice between what they have and what they could have. When we fail to provide people outside the Church with a clear alternative, we make it harder to convince them that they should make the big move across the Tiber.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

Yes–it was and is the seat of St. Peter.

The city itself was anything but holy then.

Perhaps you should actually read some of his writings. Davies was not anywhere close to being a sedevacantist, and he absolutely opposed that position. On the occasion of his death, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a small commentary in which he praised Davies for his defense of the Church. I have the quote in print at home, so I’ll have to come back and post it later.

I apologize…I had him confused with another traditionalist writer. But Davies is the one that believes that the magisterium can err.

Obviously we are not referring to the Sacrifice offerred to the Father, as that is objectively pleasing to God. The Mass is more than just strictly the Sacrifice-- it is the prayers, the sacred atmosphere, the doctrine conveyed, etc.

Yes, all of which are present in the NO that I attend weekly. All of those aspects are present in the Dominican Rite that I attend on occasion as well, which is not the same as the TLM. They don’t do the prayers at the foot of the altar in that one…is it also an inferior Mass?

In Christ,
Rand