On his very fine blog, Traditional Catholic Priest, Fr. Peter Carota recently posted an article that draws some interesting comparisons between the traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo from the unique perspective of the priest.
It’s well worth reading and sharing.
Unfortunately, it would seem that the very people who stand to benefit most from Fr. Carota’s insights are also the ones most poorly-equipped to give him a fair hearing, and in a certain sense, it’s not their fault.
The Novus Ordo practically breeds Mass-goers that are fixated on their own subjective liturgical experiences and preferences.
I know. I was one of them.
Few in the Novus Ordo world will even attempt to deny that the way in which the Mass is experienced is heavily influenced by the personal characteristics of the priest-celebrant.
For example, when the Novus Ordo Missae is offered by a priest who communicates joy and a sincere personal love for the Lord and His people, not simply in the homily, but throughout the entirety of the rite – be it by the expressiveness of his intonations, or by the eloquence of his gestures – the positive experience of the faithful is due in no small measure to the pious feelings that the priest himself aroused within them.
The converse is also true, as one’s experience of the new Mass is often impacted in a negative way by a priest who lacks the charisma, or more appropriately, the “liturgical stage presence,” of the aforementioned other.
In other words, the faithful experience the priest as much, and often even more, than the liturgy itself.
In fact, it’s not at all uncommon for Novus Ordo Mass-goers to avoid, or deliberately seek, certain liturgies based upon who the celebrant will be.
To be very clear, I do not intend to suggest that any of this is a reflection of the priest’s personal piety; in fact, it is my experience that priests considered liturgically bland are often the very ones most steeped in personal holiness.
The common thread in both of these examples is the Novus Ordo itself, and the “performance driven” dynamic that is endemic to the rite.
I should also add for clarity’s sake that it is incumbent upon the priest (and those who assist him; e.g., servers, schola, choir, etc.) to practice the ars celebrandi in the traditional Mass, and the degree to which he does or does not will most certainly impact the faithful’s experience.
Unlike the situation with the Novus Ordo, however, this impact is not a function of the priest’s personal disposition; rather, it is largely based upon his awareness of the underlying meaning of, and his faithfulness to, the prescriptions of the Missal.
The atmosphere of any given Novus Ordo celebration, by contrast, is created in large measure by the priest’s personality and the give-and-take that takes place between him and the people as just described.
Even in the best of circumstances, such as when the liturgical persona of the priest, ever present before the discerning eyes and ears of the people, is considered favorably, the awareness of all present (including the priest) is firmly anchored in the here-and-now.
As such, the Novus Ordo Mass-goer cannot help but view most things liturgical through the lens of personal experience, and therefore personal preference.
For example, Fr. Carota writes, “Constantly I hear from people that they do not go to the Latin Mass because they do not understand Latin.”
Such persons, and I know a boatload of them, are focused not so much on the rite of Mass itself, nor on the unique gifts that may be imparted therein, but upon their own personal preference for the vernacular and their perception of what is at stake.
The mindset on display in this case is not uncommon even among so-called “conservative” Catholics who claim to hold Pope Benedict XVI in high regard, and are well aware of his criticisms of the Novus Ordo, as well as his effusive praise for the traditional liturgy.
So much has the Novus Ordo conditioned these individuals to weigh every liturgical consideration they encounter against their own particular tastes, that most will scarcely stop to consider the possibility that the pope who gave us Summorum Pontificum (to say nothing of the men who reigned for some 1,500 years prior to Vatican II) just might know something about the Mass that they don’t.
As such, Pope Benedict’s insights, just as Fr. Carota’s, are thus reduced to little more than their personal preferences.
They like Latin; I like English, and that’s what makes the world go ‘round!
I would add to this rather common complaint about Latin a related one that is equally as self-focused; namely, that of not being able to hear, and thus immediately comprehend, so many of the prayers that are said at the traditional Mass, regardless of the language in which they are spoken as so many of them are prayed silently.
Lost in this argument is the reality that the majority of the prayers offered at Holy Mass are prayed neither for our hearing, nor for our comprehension (at least in the immediate sense, but we’ll come back to that in a moment).
And yet, this is the case even as the fruits of the Mass are without question intended for our personal benefit, and the benefit of humankind as a whole.
This can be a difficult concept for many to grasp, again, thanks to the influence of the Novus Ordo Missae.
Even the most reverent celebration of the new Mass is directed toward the faithful in a way that is similar to a protestant gathering wherein the entire service – from the exploration of the Scriptures, the music, and even the prayers that are directed toward God – are ultimately intended for the edification of the congregation.
In a setting such as this, a high premium is placed, and reasonably so, on seeing and hearing and immediately understanding what is taking place.
Not coincidentally, in spite of whatever Eucharistic devotion they may have, this is precisely the mindset that even the most devout Novus Ordo Catholics invariably bring to a discussion about the traditional liturgy.
Setting aside for the present moment the rather stark differences between the text of the Novus Ordo and that of the traditional rite, and focusing exclusively on the latter, the words spoken at Holy Mass, while most certainly capable of having an edifying effect on the people, are primarily ordered toward God; not the assembly.
This is not to say that they are prayed for God’s benefit, of course, but rather are they prayed unto His worship; in this case, a worship that is offered in the Sacrifice of Christ re-presented; the same that can never be exceeded in perfection, with its primary effect being not so much our edification, but the expiation of our sins.
This being the case, hearing and immediately understanding the prayers of the Mass is not a requirement for entering into that perfect act of worship fruitfully, and deriving the primary benefit therefrom.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that many of the prayers in the traditional Mass are spoken to God by the priest personally, sometimes silently, as he uniquely offers the Holy Sacrifice in persona Christi.
Some of these prayers are entirely personal to the priest, like his Confiteor (separate from that of the faithful) and the Lavabo (wherein he asks forgiveness and cleansing for himself), and the Placeat tibi at the end of Mass (wherein he prays that the Sacrifice thus offered may be pleasing to God in spite of his personal unworthiness).
Other prayers are said on behalf of the entire Church and her children (e.g., “we humbly beg… we beseech… grant us…”) but are spoken by the priest alone and silently.
Even the prayer before Communion, “Domine non sum dignus…” (Lord, I am not worthy…); though prayed very specifically for the individual faithful who are about to receive Communion, is prayed by the priest alone, although audibly.
All of this is reflective of the priest’s unique function as an intermediary between God and man as he prays on our behalf.
In truth, any number of prayers and movements in the traditional rite that served to highlight the unique role of the priest were deliberately suppressed by the architects of the new Mass; thereby creating a distinctly protestant atmosphere wherein the Mass has the look and feel of a communal service that is taking place under the guidance of a “presider.”
Now, a word about comprehension…
It is most certainly to our great benefit to explore the liturgy in an attempt to comprehend the sacred mysteries that are celebrated at Holy Mass; the prayers that are spoken, the movements, the gestures, etc.
And yet, it’s important for us to realize that the nature of the sacred liturgy is such that, even for the brightest among us, our ability to truly understand is quite limited.
In other words, while the sacred liturgy is not unknowable; it is so great and so profound that the human mind can only begin to conceive of its true glory via signs and symbols and analogies.
As such, any meaningful degree of comprehension that we may attain will not primarily be derived immediately from an on-the-spot hearing, but rather by plumbing the depths of the sacred liturgy, and this with great effort.
This does takes place, in part, by silent contemplation during the liturgy itself, and yet the prayerful exploration of the sacred rites outside of Holy Mass, supplemented by liturgical instruction drawn from competent sources, is utterly indispensable in making liturgical comprehension, such as it is attainable, possible.
Those faithful who embark upon such an exploration will find that the insights gained from this effort leads to more fruitful contemplation during the Mass itself. With their hearts and minds thus more properly disposed toward being elevated by the sacred signs present in the rite, a more profound experience of the Divine is thus realized therein.
In the Novus Ordo world, this approach is essentially inverted as hearing, seeing, and understanding is given the highest priority in terms of facilitating a meaningful liturgical experience.
The idea that the sacred signs at Holy Mass, which includes the words that are spoken, should be well within one’s intellectual grasp is truly nothing short of preposterous; i.e., it’s not entirely unreasonable to say that “easily understood” is in some measure antithetical to the sacred rites.
This, however, is a direct fruit of Vatican Council II which stated, “Both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease.” (cf SC 21)
In conclusion, tradition-minded Catholics, having discovered so great a treasure as the Usus Antiquior, cannot help but call their Novus Ordo friends and acquaintances to embrace its singular magnificence.
We must be cognizant, however, of the fact that the overwhelming majority of these individuals have been conditioned in such way that their concept of liturgy is severely skewed in the direction of self.
As such, we must pray for our Novus Ordo friends, that they may receive the grace necessary to set their preconceived liturgical notions aside, that their eyes may be opened to the great treasures that have been lost, and thus gain a sincere desire to recover them for the greater glory of God.
Having said this, I would encourage you to consider sharing Fr. Carota’s post (and perhaps this one) with those who may stand to benefit.
If a slightly retarded person really understood in their heart, “Jesus is here” and united with Him, they would understand the Mass better than a scholar of Latin and the liturgy who did not do so. The only way to come close to a comprehension of the Mass is to unite lovingly with Jesus in the heart, not to become a scholar. Because such interior understanding comes only from God. I understood that Jesus was there and that this is the most important event in the world when I was a toddler, long before I learned one word of Latin.
Great post. The fabrication of the Novus Ordo service is definitely part of today’s diabolical inversion of all things. Regarding today’s pathological focus on personal EXPERIENCE, this largely flows from that modernist pseudo-philosophy known as phenomenology and its related branch, personalism. Get a load of this shamelessly triumphalist modernist freak celebrating his vast EXPERIENCE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXyCdX6jZpg&index=10&list=PLf375sWCjj6rRGmcJeRyBDHKflN6yf6MZ&spfreload=10
And from the very first sentence in this book, it’s infected with the same insane focus on EXPERIENCE:
http://www.amazon.com/Discernment-Spirits-Ignatian-Everyday-Living/dp/0824522915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423174312&sr=8-1&keywords=gallagher+discernment+of+spirits
– “[the complaint] of not being able to hear, and thus immediately comprehend, so many of the prayers that are said at the traditional Mass…as so many of them are prayed silently”
The bottom fell out of that complaint when the man claiming to be pope said loudly and clearly, “God does not exist”, and virtually no-one heard it.
on Pilgrimage to…
STARKENBURG
The Holy Mass that cannot die
Was said amidst the oaks
While pin-oak leaves came floating down
Around the simple folks
Who knelt upon the acorn floor
All dotted nutty brown
The acorns cracked and old knees snapped
Yet still there was no sound…
But the tinkling of the golden bells
As the White Host Son rose high
On priestly limbs like mighty oaks
They branched up to the sky
And in that wood I laughed with joy
Amongst the souls bowed down
For the mighty oak was once a nut
That merely held its ground.
So Christian souls like acorn nuts
Must burrow all around
And be the seed that sprouts new oaks
On consecrated ground…
Where the Holy Mass, that cannot die
Is said around the oaks
While pin-oak leaves come floating down
Amidst the mighty folks!
The Novus Ordo is directly responsible for the “ideological” parishes we have today, rather than geographical ones. And to go further, I believe it has indirectly helped bring about the non-denominational Christian “churches” we are being sucked dry by every day.
very timidly could I point out the advantage of hearing the prayers in your own language…although I studied Latin for 7 years, memorising large tracts of Pliny along the way, I am unable to THINK in Latin
And in reciting The Creed, I can meditate and internalise the words, understanding the phrases , and grow in wonder at their clarity and truth.
And so the liturgical crumbs that land at my feet remain a deeply satisfying banquet
Every human being is called to understand and appreciate the Holy Sacrifice to the extent that he is able with the intellectual capacity God has given me. Your sentiment is beautiful in a sense, but would not, for example, excuse someone who is capable of understanding the defects of the Novus Ordo Missae from acknowledging them.
—–
“Jesus is here” is not the full reality of the Mass. Jesus is here as Priest and Victim; He offers Himself to the Father in a propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of man, making present the Sacrifice of Calvary – that is the full reality of the Mass.
—–
You are correct in your implication that Faith is higher than Reason, but the latter is holy and worthy as well, and compliments the former.
I recommend “The Heart of the Mass” compiled by Sarto House and sold by Angelus Press. Full explanation of each prayer, as well as each gesture and posture in the Traditional Mass. Not only instructive, it’s a meditation too in that it shows the depth of thought that has gone into this traditional treasure – The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Ever mindful, the answer is simply to get a Latin/English Missal.
Let’s not put too much emphasis on understanding what’s being said in the Mass. There were many centuries when most people could not read or write. Before the printing press was developed there were no books for all but the rich.
–
How did those people participate at Mass? No reading, no missals, no understanding of the liturgical language…they joined their hearts with the sacrifice being offered to God. They gazed up at the stained glass – those beautiful pictures were lessons for them. The sermon taught them their faith, and as well there was often another ‘sermon’ in the afternoon. There were many feast days when no one worked so there was time for stories and tradition.
–
We’re spoiled with ‘data’ and we feel we have to ‘get’ everything. Silly.
For those who have not seen a side-by-side comparison of the TLM and the Novus Ordo Missae here is one:
–
http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/comparison-between-the-traditional-and-novus-ordo-missals#Greeting%20Opt%202
–
Just to start the comparison on the right foot, and to emphasize how the NO starts off on the wrong foot, where is the equivalent of Psalm 42 in the NO? I guess the mason and protestants who cobbled together the NO thought that the Amighty did not require an extravagant greeting, and the presider could turn his back on Our Lord (if the Tabernacle is even in the sanctuary) as soon as possible, and turn his attention to greeting Alice, Nancy and Carol before they felt left out!
–
If this grating difference in the focus of the two rites (that is evident right from their respective beginnings) doesn’t shock you, I don’t know what to tell you, because it should!
The prior link isn’t to the beginning of the comparison – this link is:
–
http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/comparison-between-the-traditional-and-novus-ordo-missals
–
Well, I’m sorry, Barbara, but I do have to disagree. There are intellectual treasures infinitely deep in the Holy Sacrifice waiting to be appreciated.
—–
I follow Pope St. Pius Xth’s advice:
—–
“The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the altar. If you wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart, and mouth all that happens at the altar. **Further, you must pray with the Priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him.** You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the altar. When acting in this way you have prayed Holy Mass.”
—–
That is what I do, every week, though I have four children vying for attention also. Nothing in this life gives me more joy or more intellectual satisfaction.
—–
Part of the beauty of the Mass, which I think reflects God’s plan for humanity in general, is that it can be experienced and enjoyed on many levels. It is a mistake to look down upon (for example) a soul who is bereft of both understanding of Latin and a reasonable translation, who can still unite his heart with Christ’s, just as it is a mistake to pass over the deep spiritual treasures expressed by those beautiful prayers.
Here is an interesting article written by a priest (!) about his experience of the TLM:
–
http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/tridentine-mass-why-i-couldnt-go-back
–
Here is the money quote:
–
“REACTIONS. During the celebration I felt very uncomfortable. It was strange and foreign. Even though I was very familiar with the Tridentine Mass from my childhood, it seemed remote and distant. The Mass seemed to focus on the priest whose words for the most part could not be heard (they were in Latin anyway!) and who rarely faced the people. The choir performed well and their singing overrode the priest, who had to wait several times until they finished singing.”
–
As mentioned by Mr. V the orientation of the NO inclines the faithful to become focussed on what the Mass does for them, and not what worship and service it renders to the Almighty. Even the priest author of this article runs afoul of this since his only apparent concern is how the TLM made him feel!
–
Perhaps the word this priest was grasping for when he said the TLM “was strange and foreign” was that the TLM is otherworldly! This may explain why he “felt very uncomfortable” while attending the TLM because as a modern “Jesuit” he is concerned solely with worldly concerns like social justice, rights for the sexually aberrant, etc.
–
Keep in mind that this priest also comes very close to exhibiting a contemptuous attitude towards the TLM. I guess he doesn’t feel the canons of the pre-VII Church are anything to be frightened by:
–
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church [e.g. the TLM], wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned [held in contempt], 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.
Dear Louie and all,
So many Catholics have fallen away from both The Faith and The Church in our times, that the Church now stresses the need for a “New Evangelization”. In an interview with “The Wanderer” last month, Cardinal Burke noted the important connection between THE WAY WE WORSHIP, and our ABILITY to carry out that vital mission.
We take his words to mean that we aren’t attending Mass to demonstrate our love for neighbor, but to connect with the Mystery of God and Redemption, while we Worship Him with heart and soul; resulting in our receiving all we need from Him to do a better job of remaining faithful to Him, AND loving our neighbor,for love of Him. As many already know, this Cardinal appreciates the “night and day” difference between the TLM and the N.O. recognizing each as valid, but explaining why one is so vastly superior:
__
“..Unless we: celebrate the Sacred Liturgy with the greatest possible faith in God and faith in the divine action which takes place in Holy Mass, we are not going to have the inspiration and the grace to carry out the New Evangelization.” “The Sacred Liturgy shows us the form of the New Evangelization because it is a direct encounter with the Mystery of faith.. which establishes a right relationship with God and with one another, which we are called to live in our daily lives..”
__
“this.. by celebrating thee Sacred Liturgy in such a way that all of the faithful UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRIEST IS ACTING IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST..that it is Christ Himself Who is descending to our altars to make truly present His sacrifice; THAT THEY MUST UNITE THEIR HEARTS TO HIS OWN glorious pierced Heart, TO CLEANSE THEM FROM SIN AND STRENGTHEN THEM for love of God and love of neighbor.”
__
“IF the Sacred Liturgy is celebrated in an anthropocentric way, in a horizontal way in which IT IS NO LONGER EVIDENT THAT IT IS A DIVINE ACTION, it simply becomes a SOCIAL activity that can be relativized along with everything else — it doesn’t have any lasting impact on one’s life…. “The action of Christ through the signs of the sacrament, through His priests, is very evident in the Extraordinary Form.”
http://angelqueen.org/2015/01/06/in-wanderer-interview-cardinal-burke-offers-insights-on-the-synod-on-the-family-and-the-new-evangelization/
=======
We personally find the rich prayers, the majestic actions, reverence, formality, and even the time it takes to do all that is required in the TLM, give US the time to transition our dispostions from worldly concerns, to focusing all our attention of the most important things-which Cardinal Burke listed above.
– The N.O.may be intended to do that, but it requires of us a great deal of mental discipline to “rise above” all the distractions- like the “personality” of the priest at times, people talking and dressing immodestly, and the general lack of attention to God before and after the celebration, by so many. The shortness gives little time to “readjust the consciousness”. We see it as a failed experiment, like so much else that happened in the 1960’s. It will do where there is nothing better, but HOW we wish that were not the case for so many today. And our current Holy Father, is making it clear, he views it as a threat, rather than the treasure it is.
I did not make my point clearly. Certainly we must not look down on those who cannot understand the deeper meaning of Holy Mass. If I came across as doing that it certainly was not my intention.
–
Neither so I minimize the very deep treasures to be found in an understanding of the Mystery, and prayers/gestures.
–
I think my point was that Holy Mass fills EACH soul with these treasures no matter the intellectual level, provided the soul is in the state of grace, and has the intent to join herself with Christ’s Sacrifice.
–
Another point must be made. Each bishop, and each priest, has the duty to educate all those who attend Holy Mass to the best of their ability. To neglect this sacred duty is to fail as ‘apostles.’ This failure of either understanding on their own part, or their failure to educate is the main problem that came out of Vatican II as far as Holy Mass is concerned.
This quote is pretty funny:
–
“The choir performed well and their singing overrode the priest, who had to wait several times until they finished singing.”
–
Well, Buddy, what’s the hurry??????
Dear Barbara and ACT,
We fell in love with the TLM first because of the words of the prayers.
We came to it with a deep love of God and appreciation for the Mass, after 50 years of unconsciously working past all the distractions of the N.O. form, struggling to make those connections with God that the TLM is so perfectly designed to foster. Yes, you can attend without participating fully by reading every word–many mothers with small babies do it every week. But there is a very special entryway to the heart and soul opened by the words and that is enriched the more you understand the actions that accompany them.
We would suggest that God always provides for our needs–and perhaps there were differing degrees of inspiration afforded the people from the time of Christ until the TLM was fully developed. God never withholds what we need from us.
Once we learned to “think” in Latin, by going back and forth between it and the English, (which took several years for us old folks) we were able to experience an even greater effect, that is almost indescribable. (note to Ever mindful regarding your difficulty–please keep trying by reading both until you acquire that ease with the parts of the Mass that stay the same, and just read the changeable parts in English)
🙂 🙂
,
Why do we need a ‘new evangelization’ when the old one was perfect? We used to teach The One True Faith, and then attempt to live it ‘separate from the world while in the world’ and thereby provide witness to the Truth we taught.
–
We’ve stopped doing that, mainly because we no longer believe in The One True Faith. And we’ve certainly stopped living ‘separate from the world while in the world.’ When we are told now that the old way was massively flawed why do we believe it? Where is the proof? Were there public sinners then. You bet. But the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ was, and is PERFECT in spite of the sins of her members.
–
The new evangelization (definitions vary) has not worked. What Poor Francis is showing us is the new-new evangelization. Just “be” in the world, love the world, embrace the world, walk with the world. Presume that “Jesus” (also known as GOD) will be there with us no matter which path we take, and will bring us all into “heaven.”
–
The abomination that passes for Holy Mass these days (check out The Vortex on the ‘Super Bowl mass’) is both an example of loss of The One True Faith, and what embracing the world gives us.
–
Whenever we read that someone doesn’t get the Latin, or silence, or perceived lack of participation of The Traditional Mass we have that clue: loss of faith, and the embrace of the world.
Here’s an interesting quote from the latest post on The Radical Catholic.
–
QUOTE: Adore, contemplate Jesus Christ behind the veils of the Sacrament as in the most august of sanctuaries, accomplishing the function of His reparative priesthood. He has all the qualities required in a priest: purity, holiness, contempt of created things, hatred of sin, love for sinners, a heavenly life; all these qualities He possesses in supreme perfection, in infinite perfection, because He is the Son of God, infinitely perfect. He has a perfect victim also, which is no other than Himself; and it is His soul, His body, His blood, His life, His liberty, His power, His repose, which He takes and immolates to God in the Eucharistic debasement, in which disappears the whole of His liberty and the whole of his life!
Adore Him! Adore Him in this sublime state, in this incomparable action of His Eucharistic priesthood, with humble fear, tempered by love and illuminated by admiration. CLOSED QUOTE.
–
When we attend a NO Mass do we get the sense that most participants understand the above is happening right before their eyes? Only using my personal experience I say no. (I of course excuse the ignorant, but do not excuse the modernists as bishops and priests who do not teach the above)
p.s. To Barbara,
We were writing our above post (likely simultaneously with your last one above)
without being aware of your last statement, which clarified your thoughts.
Dear all,
Here’s another little treasure that S .Armaticus kindly called attention to on his Deus Ex Machina Blog–with link below to a “Remnant” posting on the TLM. -We found it extremely educational AND easy to read. We especially appreciate the 37- point list explaining what is represented in the life of Christ, by the actions of the Priest at various parts of the Mass:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1488-the-traditional-latin-mass-a-reenactment-of-christ-s-last-days-on-earth
Dear Barbara,
We too always used to cringe when we heard the phrase “New Evangelization” . We also think it wouldn’t be necessary if the hierarchy hadn’t stopped doing their job, and that the Mandate was all they needed to do it well.
So whenever we see the phrase, we automatically translate it mentally into
” The Official Post VII Salvage Operation”. We’re pretty sure that’s how Cardinal Burke uses it too, as you notice whenever he mentions it, he goes right into a description of what the OLD evangelization was all about, in this case linking that to the TLM. His particular mention of the Sacrifice of Christ for our sins, and our need for penitence, is something that distinguishes it from the new “God of surprises and mercy who would never allow anyone to end up in hell, regardless of their free will choices in this life”.
We think he just mentions the phrase so people will realize that we’re in a mess created by many of the people who coined it. For example, in and earlier interview, he mentioned having in his memory, images of abuses since VII that are so painful he doesn’t want to recall them.
Dear Ever mindful,
We left a little response to your above comment, at the end of our response to Barbara and ACT higher up. (5th one down under #1)
Some thoughts:
As a great 18th century Neapolitan philosopher once wrote: “The hero aspires to the sublime.”
___
Questions: What constitutes the sublime? Is truth naturally conjoined to the sublime?
___
C.S. Lewis tried to have a go at defining it in his essay, “Men Without Chests.”
___
Question: which Mass is more sublime? The Extraordinary or the Ordinary Mass?
___
Statement: you can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. Therefore, question: What are the frutis of the Novus Ordo Mass? What are the fruits of the Tridentine Mass?
Arundinem quassatam non confringet, et linum fumigans non extinguet, donec ejiciat ad victoriam judicium
Matthew 12:20
Nostri ventus liber 🙂 🙂
–On the Bruised Reed: (Sts. Jerome and Hilary)
“The Lord will cherish and support the infirm and the weak in this time of penance and probation, inviting them to greater strength, and light, and perfect charity till the power of death be taken away; till He return to judge the world, and His judgment will be victorious; though in the meanwhile it often may appear supressed and even subdued, by the obstinate will of man.”
__
“Victory, by His Truth becoming universally triumphant over the world, and in His Name, all nations shall hope.
Thus will He bear with the little light and virtue of His enemies, till the bright light of His Faith, and the warmpth and strength of His Grace obtain in their hearts, and triumph over every opposition.”
The evangelising mission Christ gave to the Church is perfect and cannot be improved.
Ok, Barbara, we’re on the same page. I must admit I was a bit confused by your comments initially.
—–
IF, I’m on the same page as you guys as well. Here’s a little story I like to tell:
—–
In the early 2,000s I was a fervent revert discovering the treasures of the Mass. Reading Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper” did it for me – it amazed me. But I was a bit perplexed by one thing: I realized that I would have never goten the point of the Mass – the propitiatory Sacrifice – from *reading the prayers*. It took a book to do that. “Dr. Hahn must be quite a bit more perceptive than I”, I thought once, “he was able to see the theology of the Mass much more easily”.
—–
You can probably see where I am going with this. It was only a very short time after attending my first Tridentine Mass, around five years later, that the lights come on: You just CAN’T MISS the theology of the Mass with THIS Rite! There it is, right in front of you, in all of it’s incredible, awe-inspiring, Protestant-annoying beauty. The prayers of THIS Rite make it crystal clear that an eternal Priest is offering an eternal, immaculate, divine Victim to the Father in reparation for the sins of the world, Who will subsequently be consumed as in all sacrificial meals.
—–
What is evil other than the lack of a necessary good? The Angelic Doctor defines it thus. And so what must we call a Rite of Mass that quite deliberately suppresses the most important truths of the Mass?
—–
Here’s a great kicker: I discovered a bit later that at this time I had been going to daily Mass in the exact same chapel (on a prominent Jesuit university campus) that Hahn did initially! He was writing about a Mass experience so similar they might have been offered by the same priests.
Here’s a piece from a SSPX page, on Padre Pio’s Mass. From this description can you envision Padre Pio saying the NO? (as he died in 1968 he was excused from saying it.)
–
Each priest, even though he may not be a living saint like Padre Pio must at least have a vehicle with which to attempt this beautiful Mass:
–
(QUOTE) Fra Fucci’s observations on Padre Pio’s Mass
He was totally absorbed and conscious of what he was about to fulfill. His face which was of normal color became frighteningly pale when he put on the amice. From that moment onwards he paid no more attention to anyone. Clothed in the sacred vestments he made his way to the altar. Even though I walked ahead of him, I was aware that his gait became more dragging, his face sorrowful. He seemed to stoop always more, as if, I thought, crushed beneath the weight of a gigantic invisible cross.
Once he arrived at the altar he kissed it lovingly and his pale face became inflamed. His cheeks would become crimson, his skin translucent so that one almost saw the flow of blood that rushed to his cheeks. After the Confiteor, he beat his breast with hollow and heavy blows as if accusing himself of all the worst sins committed by man. His eyes remained closed without being able to prevent large tears that disappeared into his thick beard.
At the Gospel, as he announced the Word of God, it seemed as if he fed himself with these words, tasting their infinite sweetness. Immediately after, the colloquy between Padre Pio and the Eternal began, and he wept abundant tears. He who had received the gift of contemplation from the Lord was penetrating into the depth of the Redemption. The veils of that mystery having been torn by the suffering of his faith and love, all things human disappeared from his sight. Before his gaze was God alone!
Everyone saw Padre Pio suffering. He pronounced the liturgical prayers with difficulty and interrupted by sobs. The Padre felt embarrassment at being watched by the curious eye. He would have preferred to celebrate Mass privately so as to be able to give free rein to his suffering and to his indescribable love.
In those moments Padre Pio lived sensibly and really the Passion of the Lord. He was outside time! That was why his Mass lasted an hour and a half or probably more. At the Elevation his suffering reached its height. Watching his weeping, his sobbing, I was afraid his heart would burst, that he was about to faint from one moment to the next. God’s Spirit had by now penetrated his whole body. His soul was buried in God. He offered himself with Christ, victim for his brothers in exile.
His heart must have burned like a volcano. He prayed intensely for his spiritual children, for the sick, and for those who had already left this world. I heard him repeat often through his tears: “My God! My God!” A spectacle of faith, love, suffering and emotion that reached the point of drama when the Padre raised the Host. The sleeves of the surplice came down and his torn, bleeding hands were in the sight of all, whereas his gaze was on God!
At Communion he seemed to relax. Transfigured in a passionate, ecstatic abandon, he fed on the Flesh and Blood of Jesus. How much love emanated from his face! The people, astounded, could not but kneel before that mystical agony, to that total annihilation of himself. The incorporation, the assimilation, the fusion was total! Padre Pio would remain as if stunned as he tasted all the divine sweetness that only Jesus in the Eucharist knows how to give.
So the sacrifice of the Mass would be completed with a real participation of love, of suffering and blood. And it brought about many conversions. At the end of the Mass another suffering would devour him—that of going to the choir loft to remain alone and in silence, recollected in prayer to be able to thank Jesus. He would remain immobile as if without life, so absorbed was he in divine contemplation.
The Mass of Padre Pio! No one will be able to describe it. Only one who has had the privilege of living it can understand. (CLOSED QUOTE).
–
If the priest is facing ‘the people’ wearing a polyester robe, miked-up, using an earthen ware bowl, and a kool-aid pitcher, intoning a banal, short, pastiche of a liturgy, what would be Padre Pio’s reaction?
Thank you, Barbara for your early recommendation, and your post on Padre Pio celebrating Mass,a tremendous help for full recollection
And thank you,Indignus Famulus, for continuing to paint on a wide canvas with broad brush strokes
Mass.
The New Mass is well attended because of RE classes but few of the children seem to continue. The Vetus Ordo Mass (circa 70 including choir and servers) is slowly growing but the congregation is becoming younger with now a near exact male/female balance .
The future for the Church is a return to the ancient Mass . We managed without knowledge of Latin for 1,965 years, and in any case have bilingual missals these days.
Am having difficulty in posting. The following also should have been included above,
Two generations, say fifty years, will see this through. If the present trends continue, the number of Vetus Ordo priest , while small, will exceed that of the New Mass priests. And that that ignores the many ordinary parish priest who are slowly but I suspect increasingly, switching to the Mass of Ages.,
It will be a smaller Church, as Benedict said , for a while at least, say a hundred years. But what is that in the fullness of time?
Dear Lynda and Barbara,
We fully agree. We’re wondering if what’ we’ve been told about this “new evangelization” differs greatly from others? We differentiate it from the so-called “ecumenism” which so often seems false to us, and have been told by a number of priests that the Church sees it as a means of reaching out to fallen away Catholics, primarily. May we ask how you view it?
This prediction you mention is being verified by current statistics–including the far greater number of candidates for traditional seminaries who make it to ordination.
The enemies of Tradition have noticed, and are fighting it (FFI and South America, eg). But we have God’s assurance regarding His Church:
(Matthew 1618)
“et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam”
(“and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it)
These days, it helps us to recall that promise, more often. 🙂 🙂
Yes, Indignus Famulus, It appears to me to be marketed to the lapsed Catholics only, and even then, appears to have a very “soft sell” approach, to offer a social Catholicism, rather than the true, full content of the Faith. As if, it would be nice to have the lapsed Catholics back in the social milieu but God forbid that one would even think of a Protestant, Jew or Muslim, having the same need for Christ’s Church, and salvation by the means designated by Our Lord. God bless.
Dear Lynda,
We fully agree, and have additional strong suspicions that those “soft” efforts we have also witnessed in our area, are highly motivated by the determination to keep the collection baskets from further dwindling.
There are sincere priests who are concerned about the “dropouts”, but even many of them, when confronted directly, admit they are too “busy” with parish activities to do much more than advertise the Church and encourage parishioners to bring people to Mass with them. (Which risks more sacrilegious communions without instructions about mortal sin)
— With the “priest shortage”, priorities become more important than ever. We see too much concern with fund-raisers and not enough effort to extend Confession-times, for example. Not everywhere,- as we have also witness some priests struggling to avoid those inversions of duty, and give good example. But far too often as Louie’s link notes, the priest seem to want too much to be seen as “just one of the guys” these days.
If the mass is not valid, Jesus is not ‘there’. The Novus Ordo Mass (the New Order Mass) is part of a new edifice – a new Religion that has a new Code of Canon Law, a new Catechism, a new mass, and new teachings. What part have Truth and Belial together? None.
We must pray for our Novus Ordo friends. We must pray for all those enslaved to the heads that have sprouted out of the beast of post-temple Judaism (Islam, Protestantism, Freemasonry, Atheism, Communism, Liberalism) = Modernism. A New World Ordo. Novus Ordo. They have one thing in common – they hate Jesus the Risen Christ and His Bride.
–
Mass changes. Faith changes. Rites change – substantially so as to break all union with what preceded. When Moses met God, God gave him his name: ‘I AM that I AM’. This has been the translation of ‘Eheyeh asher Eheyeh’ for centuries. Recently, however, people have said, ‘no’, it is actually in the future tense, ‘I will be what I will be’. It is this grammar that the false church and its false worship bow to. There is no ‘rock of ages’ anymore, no ‘I AM’, (remember Christ said, ‘before Abraham was, I AM’), simply a shifting sand ‘god’, who is as changeable as fallen creation – a personality waiting to ‘be all it can be’.
–
The ‘authorities’ of the Novus Ordo Religion have implimented a new Code of Canon Law, a new worship, new teachings, a new Catechism, a new ‘ecumenism’ – in short, a New Order religion that rests on the shifting sands of personality and all its vagaries. The problem of authority is not so complicated. It is God who ordains authority or permits anyone to have authority, whether worldly or spiritual. Worldy authority is ‘Ceasar’ and must be given its due (render unto Ceasar). Spiritual Authority exists only in harmony with the teachings of Christ and His Apostles and no one can cheat God of His due and we must be prepared to lose our lives rather than to render unto Ceasar that which belongs to God – our Faith, our Worship, our Love, our Lives; the New Order Religion wants our Faith, our Worship, our Love, our very Lives to be given over to ‘something new’ – a new Order that is in ‘harmony’, not with Heaven, but with the prince of this world.
–
If anyone teaches against this deposit of Faith, he has no authority over us given from Heaven – none – to compel us concering Faith, Worship, Morals, Dogma – none whatsoever. If he has no authority from Heaven, all his authority is worldly and belongs to satan and we must cry, ‘Anathema!’ in all such matters. We must cry, ‘anathema!’ at the Novus Ordo Religion and its worldly ‘authorities’. A person who teaches and worships against Christ and His Apostles is outside the Church as a simple spiritual fact; two millennia of Tradition attests to this. The pertinacity in error of the Novus Ordo Religion attests to its emptiness in terms of authority over the Faithful. The Novus Ordo Religion has usurped the structures of the Church and deceived the sheep with ‘hirelings/shepherds’ who did not go in by the gate. We turn our backs on Christ if we follow them or ‘pay’ them God’s due. If we the sheep stop feeding hirelings with our Faith, our Worship, etc. God may give us a shepherd. The Four Marks are clear – unity, holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity – all of which the New Order Repligon rejects and seeks to destroy. It seeks the unity of humanity, not of the true Faith, it seeks desanctification, not the establishment of sanctuaries dedicated to the One True God; it seeks to deconstruct original and personal sin so that there is no need for holiness; it denies Catholicity with its ecumenism and destroys the very concept of Apostolicity with its ‘brother bishops’, its Assisi reverence, its new rites of ordination etc.
–
The problem with the Novus Ordo Mass is simple – it belongs to the Novus Ordo Religion and its ‘authorities’. The Apocalypse speaks of the ‘authority of Scorpions’ – this is the authority of the Novus Ordo Religion.
–
http://truerestoration.blogspot.co.nz/2009/10/interview-with-fr-michael-oswalt-for.html
Dear Louie and all,
In the linked post, (although Father is entitled to his opinions, and many seem valid to us), quite a few seem distorted with exaggeration-especially if they are meant to represent “most” N.O. parishes and Masses, as his depiction of the TLM seems to indicate. As a couple who attend both TLM and N.O. regularly, we feel some objections are in order there, in the interest of fairness, and based on our experiences attending Masses in some 45-50 different N.O. parishes all around the U.S. from the late 1960’s until now.
__
1. Father wrote of the N.O.: “focus is on the people being very active by responding, hugging, standing, sitting, kneeling, singing, walking in procession to receive Holy Communion.”
–Ancient knees like ours, don’t lie, and there are far more bodily motions required by the TLM: Dominus Vobiscum = STAND every time…and has anyone attended a TLM and not stood, sat, knelt, and lined up on the way to Communion, in addition to kneeling at the rail? We also sing more than a few Mass responses at our TLM, and are encouraged to do so while the choir is chanting. (Don’t know if that is the usual practice, as we’ve only attended a few different parishes that have allow the TLM over the last 10 years).
2. Father writes: “Clapping is encouraged to congratulate people or while singing songs.” Ironically, the last time we had a celebrant ask those present to “show their appreciation” that way, it was “for the beautiful chant of the visiting choir” –just before the homily at a TLM. (To our shock)
3. Father: “Everyone loves it because the focus is on the cute children and the people.” This has not been our experience. “Cry rooms” exist in many parishes, complete with views of the altar and one-way sound systems. Emphasis stays on the Mass and Eucharist. Contrarily, at our TLM, there are many large families and the usual distractions like frequent potty trips, taking out naughty children, outbursts from hungry infants, mothers covering up to nurse,all of which are politely ignored as by the rest of us, while the families all sit with the main congregation. Neither Mass focuses on the cute kids.
4. Fr. “Very little kneeling in adoration of God.” Again not true in our parishes. The USCCB and Vatican directives have made kneeling optional when not required at a Mass part; and many people we see frequently choose to take that opton. Some kneel down for communion even though in line formation, others deeply bow while crossing themselves, with no objections.
5. Fr: “Most people receive Holy Communion.”
Isn’t that true at TLMs? It certainly is at ours. Parents usually bring all their children to the rail, as well.
6. Fr: “People usually sit and do not kneel after receiving Holy Communion.” Again our experience is the opposite.
7. Fr: “Many times the Precious Blood of Christ is spilled on people or the floor.” We’ve never seen that happen, but we have seen priests at the TLM on several occasions, hurrying to begin distributing communion-reaching several people, before the altar boy caught up to him with the paten. Such things are due to human error, and rare in our experience.
=====
We’ve witnessed many well-done, reverent N.O. Masses, and full congregations in which great respect is shown throughout the Mass. This is even more pronounced at weekday Masses. We agree the TLM is far superior, but it can stand on it’s own merits, without wording descriptions of the N.O. so as to make “most” N.O. priests and attendees appear to be regularly like the worst abusers we’ve seen on internet videos.
__
Most of those abusive nightmares are due to lax Bishops and priests, who ignore the rubrics, which, when followed are much better than that depicted by Father Carota. –Just a few things to consider as well.
respect…reverence…worship. Lies have been respected, reverenced and worshipped; it doesn’t make them worthy. The ‘problem’ lies with Truth…and who is following it.
Dear salvemur,
Who is being respected, reverenced and worshipped, above, is the Blessed Trinity. The second person of that Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ, is being offered to the Father in a renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary in expiation for our sins. Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and this is the main reason that despite its being inferior in quality in many other ways, and it’s potential for abuse, which we fully acknowledge, we defend the N.O. when it is unjustly attacked. Obviously we’re not likely to convince you of these things, judging from the way you often write against anything connected to it. But while we recognize your legitimate grievances, we offer you and others the testimony of our lives.
___
The reason we loved the TLM when experiencing it as adults, and immediately recognized its value, was BECAUSE we had sincerely applied ourselves to every N.O. Mass we attended from the late 1960’s until about 10 years ago when we had our first opportunity to attend a TLM. What struck us first, were the prayers of the Mass-so many of which we recognized from the N.O.
contrary to many people say, oddly enough, those had led us to realize the Worship and Sacrifice aspects of the Mass, and the TLM left us with more emotional euphoria than any N.O. ever had. We noticed that right away, and could only shake our heads and wonder why at first. The deep connection with our Lord was there. God’s Grace had been leading us in our daily lives, seeking holiness, rejecting worldly views and actions more and more, growing in gratitude for His Sacrifice and the Church and Sacraments, even AS we felt and saw all the confusion growing in the world around us.
If we were some amazing exception to the rule, you could perhaps do more to persuade us that what we experienced all these years through attending N.O. Masses was an illusion. But we know many people like ourselves, who struggled to keep the Faith in these distressing times, and found consolation through the Mass–which is why so many of them attend daily, even though it now means a schedule of 4 or 5 different parishes per week.
___
We know this is hard for you to accept, and we deeply respect the love for God and the Church which we see behind every passionate word we’ve read of yours. But our experience tells us that what we believe about this, is not a lie.
As Cardinal Burke said, in his last several interviews, there is a stark difference between the two, and the TLM is better in many ways. But the N.O. is still the Mass which gives us Jesus in Person at Communion time, as well as in the hearing of His Word.
@IF: The give-away that makes me doubt your cover story (that the entity IF is really just an elderly couple comprised of a “meek” wife and a long suffering husband) is that your defense of the NO evidences a studied ignorance of certain issues and great knowledge of other issues. Further, your 7 issues with the good Father, besides betraying a certain arrogance that you can contradict a good priest, appears to be a subtle exercise in rhetoric and not at all concerned with the truth.
–
I will discuss your points one-by-one using your numbering:
–
(1) The active participation is of a different kind. In the TLM, the faithful in attendance “follow along” with the priest who is acting in persona Christi. In the NO, the faithful are thought to share in the priestly authority themselves and thus recite the prayers along with the presider/presbyter. Note, the type of participation evidenced in the NO blurs the distinction between the priest and the laity and in a subtle manner contradicts Catholic dogma that Our Lord did, in fact, institute a priestly caste.
(2) You cite one instance against the father’s wide experience. Besides that one instance at a TLM, can you recall any other where the faithful clapped at a TLM? Personal anecdotes about one instance here or there do not disprove that the TLM is more given to reverence than the NO.
(3) Your characterization of the families who attend the TLM is the dead give-away: “Contrarily, at our TLM, there are many large families and the usual distractions like frequent potty trips, taking out naughty children, outbursts from hungry infants, mothers covering up to nurse,all of which are politely ignored as by the rest of us, while the families all sit with the main congregation”. That is a very uncharitable characterization. You really don’t like large families do you? Did we ever get your opinion on the Pope’s “rabbit” comment?
(4) Your statement is self-contadictory – you deny that people don’t kneel and then you admit that the hierarchy doesn’t require kneeling which means many people won’t kneel. Further, you seem to believe that the exception proves the rule, and not general practice. The issue is that at certain times of the Mass it was always thought in the Latin rite until recent times that it was appropriate to kneel and now it isn’t thought necessary any more. Is Our Lord any less divine now, or are we more god-like?
(5) The issue is that in the NO almost all go to communion, but very few go to confession. What is your experience in your 45 – 50 parishes – that there are always lines out the door for confession? My experience is it is the same quattro gatti (as the Italians say) that show up for confession.
(7) Again another instance of anecdotal evidence. You understand that the distribution of communion on the tongue with paten as a norm will as a rule be far more successful in preventing particles of Our Lord falling on the ground and being trampled underfoot? The fact that in your wide experience several Priests in the TLM rush does not disprove the norm.
–
It is noted that you never address the doctrinal deficiencies of the NO, and leave your opinion at, for example, that the prayers of the TLM are superior. In your opinion, are the prayers of the NO inferior because they are a faithful, but comparatively (when compared to the TLM) unsuccessful expression of the Catholic faith, or are the prayers of the NO inferior because the prayers either/or both of are intentionally equivocal on Catholic teaching (e.g., the real presence of Our Lord), or adopt protestant errors regarding the nature of the mass (the mass is a communal meal commemorating the sacrifice of Our Lord and not a re-presentation in the present time of that sacrifice), the nature of the priesthood, etc.
–
Finally, you came up with seven supposed refutations of the Father’s arguments. How about you refute the following sixty-two (without anecdotal evidence about your experience in your parishes):
–
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Sacraments/Mass-why-the-Traditional.htm
–
@IF: It is interesting that you brought up the Trinity in defense of the NO. That, quite frankly, is truly rich. You do realize that the NO eliminated the preface of the Holy Trinity which is said on many Sunday TLMs:
–
“It is truly meet and just, right and profitable, for us, at all times, and in all places, to give thanks to Thee, O Lord, the holy One, the Father almighty, the everlasting God: Who, together with Thine only-begotten Son and the Holy Ghost, art one God, one Lord, not in the singleness of one Person, but in the Trinity of one substance. For that which, according to Thy revelation, we believe of Thy glory, the same we believe of Thy Son, the same of the Holy Ghost, without difference or distinction; so that in the confession of one true and eternal Godhead we adore distinctness in persons, oneness in essence, and equality in majesty: Which the angels praise, and the archangels, the cherubim also and the seraphim, who cease not, day by day crying out with one voice to repeat:”
–
The elimination of this preface is just one of many examples of how the NO by omission fails to adequately profess the Catholic faith.
Hey, Boys and Girls! I come here often because I find reasoned discussion, lots of references and links, quotes from respected sources, and passion of the best kind.
–
I’m a little saddened by the personal tone of some of the comments.
–
We ALL gain our information through our own senses – through our personal experience. That’s the only way, unless we rely on polls and surveys of vast areas around us.
–
How do we handle factual errors in a comment? We put out what we know to be the fact, in its Truth, and hope the error is corrected at least in the mind of the holder.
–
How do we handle differences of opinion? This must be done is a different way. Again, simply stating our own opinion in contrast should be the only way.
–
But any personalizing of comment might not be the best way. We then have to take the time to defend our position, then the other party defends his position, and off we go.
–
Who am I to cast this little stone? Nobody. But I wish we could stick to the 99% of great comments we see here, and leave the personalities at the door.
Dear Cyprian,
That observation helps to prove the point we were making. No one is denying things were dramatically altered and purposely omitted. We are in full agreement with all who believe the TLM is the best. Yet, you can see that the idea of God as Trinity was emphasized in our experience of the Mass, which was exclusively N.O for about 40 years, enough to make us so aware of it, that it naturally comes out of us in speaking of the meaning of the Mass.
___
Perhaps that is the result of having more of the Scriptures covered over a 2-year cycle for daily Mass, and a 3-year (ABC) cycle for Sundays. Whereas the TLM uses the same readings year after year. There are some pro’s and cons we see in both the N.O. and the TLM, and our conclusion, as we said, is that the TLM is far better.
Barbara; Who you were talking about? What specific comments did you find offensive? The only comment I found mildly borderline is when IF insinuated that the opinions of the priest author of the article which is the subject of this blog post “seem distorted with exaggeration”. One could conclude from this that IF believes the good priest has a hidden agenda – like maybe a return to tradition!
The Traditional Latin Mass (Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) is pleasing to God. The Novus Ordo “mess” is pleasing to Satan. Just look at the desecration of the Holy Eucharist at every N.O. mess. Satan must be jumping for joy!!
Actually, Cyprian, it was these comments of yours that I was talking about:
–
“@IF: The give-away that makes me doubt your cover story (that the entity IF is really just an elderly couple comprised of a “meek” wife and a long suffering husband) is that your defense of the NO evidences a studied ignorance of certain issues and great knowledge of other issues. Further, your 7 issues with the good Father, besides betraying a certain arrogance that you can contradict a good priest, appears to be a subtle exercise in rhetoric and not at all concerned with the truth.”
–
But I guess I’m too sensitive to this sort of thing. And instead of you and I going several rounds on this, I’m happy to let it drop now if you will too.
–
IF doesn’t need my defence either!
Dear Salvemur,
Good point.
What happened to the great Catholic “Both….and”???
I agree 100%, the Novus Ordo is a different religion, we simply do not share the same faith, hence the hostility between Tradition and Rome. As a matter of fact the NO considers all other “faiths” acceptable. Only the one, true Faith is unacceptable to them …….synagogue of satan anyone ?
@Barbara: I would tend to agree that you were too sensitive here. “Studied ignorance” is not an insult but an observation about rhetorical techniques IF appears to be using; IF edifies us all about a great many things but becomes silent on issues that don’t favor her position. Saying that IF has a great knowledge about other issues is actually a compliment. I stand by my position on the step-by-step analysis of her issues with the good priest’s observations because they struck me as mostly anecdotal and hence not really of any weight. The fact that she advanced them in all seriousness after she questioned the priest author’s integrity because according to her “quite a few [of the issues raised by the father] seem distorted with exaggeration” is the only reason I characterized her behavior as arrogant here. It seems besides the point to me that a NO priest who may only have come very recently to the TLM may have encouraged clapping once or did not make sure that the hosts were held over the paten when depositing them on the tongues of the faithful when Popes are engaging in eucharistic sacrileges en masse!
Dear Cyprian,
For your own good, we suggest you do some quick penance, and pray God doesn’t stick you in a small room for a good part of your time in Purgatory, with all of our grandchildren there to admonish you simultaneously. (Being the happy “rabbit-breeders” we are, they could easily number in the twenties if you live another 5-10 years) They all seem to like Grandpa and Grandma a lot; and are living proof that verbal genes are inherited. So we wouldn’t envy you. 🙂 🙂
__
It is no demonstration of “arrogance” to contradict a priest, and it’s not a judgment of his character (good or bad) to question the accuracy of his words, and we announced it was based on anectodal evidence, (from our experiences over 50 years+). People are free to make what they want of that.
__
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, argument and contradiction are the best means of determining truth from falsehood. Obviously not something sinful.
__
What you describe as our “ignorance” on certain issues and “great knowlege” on others is just that, although we would’n’t call it “great”. But if it strikes you that way, be thankful either for our combined educational backgrounds being so widely varied, or the internet for providing whatever it was we researched and reported– which we try always to either cite or link. You’ll have to complain to God if you object to our analytical natures or whatever I.Q.s we were dealt. We enjoy connecting what we learn to revealed truth, and sharing what seems useful and interesting -especially when it’s related to a topic being discussed, and is useful to growing closer to God. If and when we occasionally take up both sides of an issue, as we did on this one, you’ll always find it’s because we spotted something which seemed too one-sided being presented as fact. It’s always about truth with us. As far as personal doubts go, for all we know, you could be Hillary Clinton, or Jimmy Akin, enjoying a lark pretending to be a Trad. 🙂 🙂
And BTW, we’ve never described ourselves as “meek” or “long-suffering” More sarcasm? Are you looking to go to bed without supper?
__
Our prior posts on the TLM, expressed our love for it accurately. The first line of our comment on Father’s post, respecfully noted that many of his opinions seem VALID to us. With the link available to anyone interested, there was no need to list the things we agreed with, which far outnumbered those we saw as unfairly depicted.
__
We gave a good number of examples of the SAME things listed by Father as occcuring at N.O.’s which we’d also witnessed (and some quite often), at TLM’s. Father listed them as happening at the N.O. IN CONTRAST with the TLM, which strongly implies they happen at one, and not at the other for important reasons. (And BTW, each of the priests we referred to, which you suggest are “inexperienced” are well-seasoned, well-respected, and past middle age.
Our examples simply made the point that those particular things were NOT exclusive to the N.O., and some are common to both. Others depend more on the degree of laxity or care being exercised in enforcing rubrics, which we don’t see mentioned at all in criticims of the N.O which bring up abuses as if they are IN the rubrics.
__
Our characterization of the things that go on with large families at the TLM was perfectly honest and accurate, and we stand by it as in no way uncharitable. If you choose see it as such you must either wish to ignore the realities of all family life, or view everyday needs of parenting as somehow derrogatory. Chilren often have to use the bathroom or be nursed or disciplined-wherever they are, including Church. We are alwasy glad to see them being brought there, whatever the type of Mass, and expect such normal things to have to be overlooked. Our point was that Father listed people focusing on children, and it happens far more often at TLMs where there are so many more of them, and usually no “cry rooms” as in modern N.O. Parishes. You seem intent on asssigning animosity to us to assault our integrity. See Barbara’s note about that, we agree. Wasted time.
___
Where the hierarchy did not requiring kneeling at those certain parts of the N.O. Mass, they required standing, instead. Those who stand to comply, are doing something we actually find more difficult, though we have often expressed our opinion that kneeling is a greater sign of reverence. In any case, they are not sitting, unless handicapped. But our point was not about what the “majority” does in that instance, but merely that we have seen “many” people choose to show traditional reverence, and many others trying to obey the hierarchy, and both show a different character than is so often being depicted when anyone contrasts the attendees at N.O Masses with those at TLMs, as if everywhere people act as irreverently they do on abuse videos. Our experience in those different Churches over all these years has shown us a different side of things. We simply offered it for consideration.
___
To Barbara, thanks for your comment, we agree.
To IF. Please take the time to read Fr. Carota’s blog to get a better understanding of ‘where he is coming from’, as the current parlance goes. He is an excellent priest. The priest who took over his parish in California undid all of Father’s efforts to bring reverence to the Holy Mass. So, whose Mass is it? The Church’s or the priest? In the NO, few priests feel bound by the rubrics. As an organist and choir director in a number of churches over thirty-five years, I saw a great deal of this. Oh, and BTW, standing during the Eucharistic Prayer and after Communion is the norm in our diocese.
I attend the TLM every Sunday. When I go to a Solemn High Mass on holy days, never has the celebrant complimented the choir, nor has the
congregation applauded them. On the other hand, at the last NO I had to attend because of a family obligation, the congregation applauded the
children’s choir, then the organist, and finally the soloist. It was unbearable.
The focus was certainly not on Our Lord.
And thank you, Cyprian, for your insightful comments. May Our Lady protect us all.
@IF: I’m not apologizing to you here. I have accepted correction from you here on more than one occasion without complaint. I didn’t say you were “ignorant” I said you adopt a “studied ignorance” when you don’t want to talk about things that don’t favor your position. It is also noted that you never answered this question:
–
“In your opinion, are the prayers of the NO inferior because they are a faithful, but comparatively (when compared to the TLM) unsuccessful expression of the Catholic faith, or are the prayers of the NO inferior because the prayers either/or both of are intentionally equivocal on Catholic teaching (e.g., the real presence of Our Lord), or adopt protestant errors regarding the nature of the mass (the mass is a communal meal commemorating the sacrifice of Our Lord and not a re-presentation in the present time of that sacrifice), the nature of the priesthood, etc.”
–
In other words, who cares if the NO is reverent if it is half-protestant at heart?
Dear Cyprian,
Just because I’ve been known to change diapers once in awhile doesn’t make me a she. 🙂
Dear Lake Erie,
We can take a further look at his website, but just to clarify, it would not be in order to change our minds about him, as we have made no negative judgment about him, personally, whatsoever. We have the highest regard for anyone who seeks to promote more reverence at Mass, and this priest was apparently trying to do that, in addition to the fact that we agree with him on so many points and about the overall superiority of the TLM. Like Cardinal Burke said, it’s like talking about night and day when you compare the prayers.
__
Would you be willing to give us some indication of what gave you the opposite impression, if you got that?
And if you did, please be assured we were presenting our contrary experiences only to give more balance to the ongoing conversation, with no such intention. Certain areas of the country are known to be worse than others, and a lot depends on the local Bishops. It would be easy to sit down to make a comparative list and begin to make unconscious generalizations, without any intent to deceive or exaggerate, or anything else that indicates less than the best intentions. We were only discussing the statements, assuming the best about the person who made them.
Dear Louie,
I was an altar server before Vatican II and through all the changes. I’ve seen and heard of horrendous abuses to the N.O. only through various news articles and on the various blogs and websites. And while I believe that the prayers and rubrics of the Extraordinary Form are vastly superior to the Novus Ordo, there seems to be a disingenuous piling on when showing the differences. First off, your lead picture: showing TLM at the most sacred part, the elevation, in a beautiful church setting, juxtaposed with what appears to be a chaplain offering Mass for sailors, (and marines?), in an available hall, probably at the Our Father. You then start with the link to a blog comparing both rites by a priest who has said both the N.O. and the TLM, and maybe the TLM exclusively now. (Note: I have no thought that he’s anything other than a holy, noble and terrific priest.) Setting aside the language, he wanted to focus on the prayers and actions that are part of the rubrics, where the focus lies, and the disposition of the congregation. While he lists the superior prayers and actions of the TLM, he focuses mostly on the abuses which occur in the N.O. While I’m not a liturgical scholar, but of the 39 points Father listed for the N.O., I could only identify 4 which were required by the rubrics. The rest seemed to be dependent on the attitude or abuse of the priest/pastor/bishop.
– If he allows lectors to read in inappropriate clothing, it’s HIS fault, not the GIRM.
– Is there talking in church, where’s the pastor? Why’s he leading the gab fest?!
– Who hires the “music minister”? Who has the final say on the music? Who invites children, et al., around the altar, (wait, I thought it was a table)? Is it the penumbra of the GIRM that requires it?
– The USCCB has recently allowed bishops to implement the (trite) action of standing during communion till all have received, (with the option of individual kneeling if there’s a need). That’s the USCCB and the Bishop, NOT the N.O.
—My ear lobes start to burn whenever I finish reading one of these comparative lists of the TLM vs N.O., (including Cyprian’s old 62), where they inflate the number with all and any without citing where or how V II, N.O. or GIRM requires such activity. I believe the N.O. Mass is valid. I wish all priests and laity would adhere to the rubrics. And, I hope the rubrics are improved and the prayers more closely reflect the TLM’s soon.
Are abuses possible in the TLM? News Flash:: –I wonder if Father attended or said Mass before V II. If so, does he remember sermons chastising those “receiving communion in the parking lot”? –Is the priest really saying all the prayers? Today, at a High Mass, I couldn’t skim fast enough with the english side to keep up through the Canon. (Do they offer Evelyn Wood for Latin?) –Before V II, I would serve mass for priests who took it as a matter of pride to break the 15 minute mark for a low mass. –The Wanderer has been in publication since 1867. I would find it interesting to read an analysis of their articles relating to abuses of the liturgy by the clergy, (or laity), from 1867 through 1962. I’ve no clue what it would show, but I’m sure it’d be instructive.
—Louie, you said, “In fact, it’s not at all uncommon for Novus Ordo Mass-goers to avoid, or deliberately seek, certain liturgies based upon who the celebrant will be.” – For me, avoid, yes; seek, no. But so what? If there were a plethora of TLM in your area, but not at your geographic parish, what would influence your decision? For me, whether TLM or N.O., I’m led to ask forgiveness, to petition, to adore and offer thanksgiving. Every Mass I attend, I am there for the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. My focus is on the altar and, especially, the Sacred Species. Do I get distracted? Heck, yeah! By gorgeous stained glass windows, cute babies, banal homilies, perfectly trained altar boys, (and sometimes girls). (If there’s a polka mass, I go elsewhere.) But I receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, N.O. or TLM.
Also you stated, “… it is incumbent upon the priest (and those who assist him; e.g., servers, schola, choir, etc.) to practice the ars celebrandi in the traditional Mass, and the degree to which he does or does not will most certainly impact the faithful’s experience.” ”Unlike the situation with the Novus Ordo, however, this impact is not a function of the priest’s personal disposition; rather, it is largely based upon his awareness of the underlying meaning of, and his faithfulness to, the prescriptions of the Missal.” I beg to differ. If all priests for all rites were properly instructed of the meaning, and faithfully followed the rubrics of the Missal, abuses would cease, (and there’d be peace in the world). May St. Michael slap some Bishop’s heads to train/retrain the priests to get all the wreckovators’ crap out of their heads and focus on the Real Presence in their hands and on the altar, (wood or stone).
Louie, and again, you seem to think it preposterous that, “Both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease.” From my point of view this dovetails well with St. Pius X’s instruction to pray the Mass, all the prayers, even those said silently by the priest. Should we not try to understand them and should the priest/bishop not assist in that? Maybe we should go back to (great)grandma’s example of saying the rosary through Mass instead. No, just because some are said silently, or sotto voce, does not mean we should not follow along.
Louie, and another thing, please take this whole comment in the spirit it’s given, like your picture of Conversations With Francis, with a couple of cold ones, (or a nice single malt).
The TLM does not make indifferent people holy, as if by miracles, nor does the N.O. make holy people lax. We’re all lazy sinners, some more so than others, (hear, hear), but it is the humble, contrite heart that our Lord will not spurn. Sacrifice or oblation You sought not, but ears open to obedience You gave me. May we all strive to be obediently humble, (I got a lotta work to do…).
You are right Barbara. Commenters ought not speculate about other commentators, nor make personal slurs. We must keep the matters under discussion, and not disrespect others.
Dear Cyprian,
We didn’t ask you for an apology, and we were only half-joking when we suggested you do penance before God punishes you in purgatory for your numerous false, and disrespectful statements about our marital status, family size, beliefs, and personal integrity.
__
Since you’ve apparently want us to know that you are “not apologizing” because you have “accepted correction on more than one occasion without complaint,” in the past, we will simply point out the immoral concept behind that illogical statement, which implies that since you’ve accepted correction for other misdeeds in the past, you’ve just given yourself a free pass to sin against charity with impunity in this case, using all of the following insults and false accusations :
-that it’s just a “cover story (that the entity IF is really just an elderly couple comprised of a “meek” wife and a long suffering husband)”
– that we are “arrogant” and “not at all concerned with the truth.”
– our ” characterization of the families… “is the dead give-away”…
-further mocking our integrity asking: “You really don’t like large families do you?” and “Did we ever get your opinion on the Pope’s “rabbit” comment?”
-and punctuating those false accusations, by referring to us (to another poster) as “she” and “her” six or more timesr, while falsely presenting our motives for relying on experts on a certain topics, (despite our past explanations to you), implying once again that we are hypocritical about our stated reasons.
__
We’ve responded with sincerity to you, feel we have not been treated with the same in return. So we will pray that you receive the Graces to take a look at how you behave, and develop some genuine remorse.
God Bless you. Sincerely
@IF: This is no longer serving any useful purpose. I will refrain from speculating on your motivations in the future. I would like to make a polite suggestion though – that the IF entity split up and take separate screen names.
–
It is noted that you still haven’t answered the question directed to you.
Dear Cyprian,
In case you weren’t joking about us breaking up our team for you,- that would be a definite ” no.” Sorry you have a problem with it, but maybe that’s because you were telling people it didn’t exist up until a few hours ago?.. Suggest you give yourself time to adjust to the idea. 🙂 🙂
__
We appreciate your offer not to “question our motives” in the future, BTW, but now we have quite a few reason to question yours, since experiencing your “tactics”. (listed above) which you seem to wish to ignore. We have an intense dislike for manipulation, so we’ll pray for you to give up using it.
. .Which reminds us–
— Re: your note that your “question” remained unanswered. We looked it over and realized you worded it as an -either/ or choice. So our answer is “none of the above” . That’s all for now.
God Bless
SPOTTING INDIGNUS FAMULUS…
Suscipe, sancte Pater, omnipotens aeterne Deus, hanc immaculatam hostiam, quam ego indignus famulus tuus offero tibi, Deo meo vivo et vero, pro innumerabilibus peccatis, et offensionibus, et negligentiis meis, et pro omnibus circumstantibus, sed et pro omnibus fidelibus Christianis vivis atque defunctis: ut mihi, et illis proficiat ad salutem in vitam aeternam. Amen.
Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer to Thee, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen.
I agree that the IF entity should make it clear to the readers and split up and have two screen names. It is presumptious and confusing to the readers when he uses “we”. The first time I came to this site I thought IF was given some special authority to speak for a majority of the people on this blog including Louis. This “we” talk is very unsetling and should be considered as very odd and imprudent when there are newcomers or people who missed his explanation as to why he uses “we.” I hope the feedback will be charitably considered.
And the sweet sounding reasons IF gives for using “we” do not outweigh the confusion, oddity and imprudence it brings with it.
Just to clarify, are Eastern Catholics in union with Rome slaves that hate Jesus?
Well, I guess this discussion has proved my point. There is a real possibility that we can make very good points, using intellectual sounding words, that still insult. Any comments about IF’s identity are off limits in civilized discourse, especially when you are snide about it. These comments add nothing to this discussion and are time-wasters when we might be getting on with some good stuff.
Ever mindful, sometimes there is no both-and. Something is either true and represents perennial Catholic teaching or it doesn’t. The Traditional Catholic Mass does the former and the NO does the latter.
IF, I didn’t have a chance to comment on something you mentioned in your original comment. The “we” in our household don’t attend High Mass in our FSSP parish just because there are so many large, noisy, disruptive families who do attend. My fault of course, but I find it very hard to concentrate on my worship, thanksgiving, propitiation, and petition modes when there is near chaos around me. Some Dad’s have control over their children, but sadly many have the idea that the little darlings must be ‘natural’ and never be told to be quiet!
–
I’ve been at NO Masses that were quiet and reverent in contrast, even though I am never able to get over the inherent ‘wrongness’ there. And of course in many NO parishes here there are NO children of any description!
–
I’m waaaaaaayyyyyyy over 60 but I remember what Mass was like, Traditional Mass of course, when I was a kid. Never were there crying babies, or unruly toddlers, or nursing mothers – this was unheard of! What happened was that Mother would go to early Mass and Dad to later Mass, or vice versa. Children were brought to Mass when they were able to sit reasonably still for a reasonable length of time. Mass was not used as a training ground – because of the disturbance caused to others – let alone the poor priest.
–
Now it’s all about ‘families’ and it’s all about ‘the children.’ It used to be ‘all about The Mass.’ I realize my position is not popular, but I don’t really care about that. What we have now is a capitulation to ‘feelings.’ It feels good to have myriad children filling God’s house – after all didn’t Jesus say “suffer the little children to come to me?” Yes, He did, but He wasn’t in the temple or synagog when He said that – no child was allowed in either place until he was twelve!!
–
What’s my point? Holy Mass has the four purposes mentioned above. Community comes way down on that list. If we are ever to regain that sense of the sacredness of Holy Mass, and even the Church itself we must curb this idea that God is just so happy that we are all there (in whatever dress we want, and with however many kiddies we want to surround ourselves with).
Wow! This is a really good example of herd mentality. Can the stoning be far behind?
–
Grow up people! I just may start calling myself George instead of Barbara. Would that annoy, confuse, discombobulate anyone?
–
This comment section becomes a waiting room for Louie’s next post when we degenerate into this childish name-calling. If anyone’s comment does not meet the implied very strict criteria just ignore it. No need to pile on from boredom.
–
I’ll risk the harsh judgment of the herd by asking for civility. Not charity because that seems impossible (here of all places!) but simple civility.
I know of a Parish that celebrates ALL their Novus Ordo Masses with the Faithful receving the Eucharist only on the tongue while kneeling. They have confession before each Mass.
It is a large Parish and you can hardly find a place to park at any given Mass. It is extremely reverent and orthodox. And the Priests are Holy men that teach about sin and evil.
They’ve even had the NO n Latin with chant and the Priest facing ad orientem.
They also offer the TLM.
Dear Ever mindful,
We like that one, too. 🙂 🙂
Dear all,
A bit off-topic, but if recess is over…We have worried Cardinals to pray for:
Cardinal Burke did another short interview last Sunday and apparently is getting ready to do battle this October:
Question:
“If Pope Francis insists on this path, what will you do?
-Cardinal Burke..” I will resist. I cannot do anything else. There is no doubt that this is a difficult time, this is clear, this is clear.”
__
-[Interviewer:] Is it painful? –
Burke: “Yes”.
-[Interviewer:] Worrisome?
-Burke: Yes.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/02/full-translation-of-cardinal-burkes.html
Dear IF:
.
The battle card. Burke is getting ready for is at the consistory.
.
Here is the link: https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/every-single-cardinal-elector-has-right-to-demand-resolution-of-team-bergoglio-scandal/
.
Here is the relevant passage:
.
“Thus, it is sufficient that the Cardinals gather together, deliberate the matter of the “Team Bergoglio” scandal, and decide the case. They would discuss whether the allegations are true and investigate them by asking the eye-witnesses, one another, whether UDG 81 was violated by vote-canvassing conducted by the supporters of Cardinal Bergoglio.”
.
The next time that the cardinals gather together is at the ordinary consistory on the 12th and 13th of February, or in 2 days time.
.
Supposedly this issue is not on the agenda.
.
Supposedly.
.
S.A.
Dear Indignus Famulus,
Not trying to change the topic, but I would like to suggest that the use of “Mr. and Mrs. Indignus Famulus” as an option for your name could fix the confusion from the past and the possible future over the use of “we”. Hope this will help.
Perhaps it would simply be wise for priests at the altar to imitate St. John the Baptist, the first to present Christ to the world, stating: “Illum oportet crescere, me autem minui.”
Correction: the Baptist was the second. But the Blessed Virgin Mary was never one to boast.
Dear Anastasia,
Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
Itaque jam non sunt duo, sed una caro. Quod ergo Deus conjunxit, homo non separet.
Mt 19:6
Dear Anastasia,
The discussion of our identity -as a couple posting together- raised by Cyprian above, was not based on any confusion over our use of plural pronouns. We’re not sure if you missed that point, but his emphasized use of “she” and “her” in his reply to Barbara obviously intended to drive home his false accusation using more sarcasm, as he said to us:
” IF, The give-away that makes me doubt your cover story (that the entity IF is really just an elderly couple comprised of a “meek” wife and a long suffering husband) is…”
___
Your joining in at that point with a “response” ( rather than a separate comment) complaining that two people posting under one name is too presumptuous, unsettling, confusing and imprudent; thus appears to be an attempt to somehow justify his behavior, and add to his mocking descriptions of us, or to deflect from the serious matters under discussion at the time.
___
Assuming the best– that it was not intended to do any of that, and you were simply reminded by that discussion to mention an ongoing problem at that point– we thank you, and are thinking over your latest suggestion. You are right that it can easily cause confusion, as it requires “realizing” at some point something that was not always obvious in our discussions, as when we mention our family.
-We’ll be working on a solution that doesn’t involve “splitting up” or changing the original too much. Using Mr.and Mrs. as a prefix presents the additional problem of added to an already long name- for those addressing responses to us. But if nothing better occurs to us, we may give it a try and hope people will continue to shorten it to IF, in reply.
God Bless.
Dear Ever mindful,
Thank you for the very true words, and support. But, although they apply very well to Holy Matrimony, the fact that we are “two as one” posting together is not immediately obvious to newcomers, by our call- name, so we think it’s very fair for people to request that we come up with a way to correct that problem, and are working on it. Splitting up is not going to happen (till death do us part
🙂 🙂 But Anastasia’s last suggestion didn’t require that, so we’re thinking it over. There’s a bit more of an explanation, in our reply to her, above, where we also noted that “confusion” over our identity was not the issue under discussion with Cyprian, who was accusing us falsely of duplicity. Another matter entirely.
Truth is truth, and we will deal with these two issues fairly and separately.
God Bless you.
Where we noted that the confusion about our identity was not
Dear SA,
Good thing we looked at the link, because we got the initial impression from your quote following our comments on Burke’s French interview, that hehad done another one and announced they were actually going to DO something about all this. One day soon…we hope. 🙂 🙂
p.s. sorry, one for the one extra line at the end there…
Interesting News update:
We grandparents
just learned ( from Mundabor, CNN and EWTN)
That Cardinal Burke has CLARIFIED his comment answering the hypothetical question of what he would do if the Pope continues on his course
(i.e. communion for the divorced, re”married” not-annulled/ adulterers)
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/what-cardinal-burke-really-said-about-resisting-pope-francis-87675/
KEY QUOTES: (Feb 9th)
“I simply affirmed that it is always my sacred duty to defend the truth of the Church’s teaching and discipline regarding marriage,” .
OUR EMPHASIS:
“NO AUTHORITY CAN ABSOLVE ME FROM THAT RESPONSIBILITY, AND THEREFORE IF ANY AUTHORITY, EVEN THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY, WERE TO DENY THAT TRUTH, OR ACT CONTRARY TO IT, I WOULD BE OBLIGED TO RESIST, IN FIDELITY TO MY RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE GOD.”
==========
Does anyone else think like we do, that he’s on a roll here? And sounding more and more like a good MILITANT Soldier of Christ?
Maybe we should all start chanting “Council, Council” and keep praying for that Pope who will do the Consecration as Our Lady requested….
🙂 🙂
Dear James,
We (grandparents)
were thinking talking about a scenario like that with a friend from a Traditional Order of monks and priests, who believes it may be good to “improve” the N.O. by incorporating as much of the TLM back into it as possible.
He mentioned the benefits of the increased number of readings from Scripture annually in the N.O, and the updated Calendar which includes more of the Saints feastdays than the ’62 missal does.
–The objections we’re read to that idea are that it may cosmetically alter just enough of the N.O., omitting many essentials, that it becomes a very bad substitute. And since modernists are still in such great numbers in positions of authority today, who could we trust to undertake such modifications?
Obviously the Traditional priest at this parish you mention, is doing his best under the current circumstances. God Bless his efforts. Perhaps they WILL eventually draw more people to the TLM. 🙂 🙂
Dear Barbara,\
We (old grandparents) too, remember the days when families split up and parents went separately. You are definitely right that there were fewer distractions under that procedure.
__
We’ve discussed this issue over many years now, and came to the conclusion that the good accomplished by families attending Mass together, outweighs the distractions that it necessarily entails.
-The children learn from infancy onward, how important the Sunday Worship is, and take in all the sights and smells and sounds despite not understanding it all.
-The parents wordlessly present the beauty of being the domestic Church as family, to the community worshipping there, making a truer representation of the reality of their parish, to the priest and all others who attend.
-At whatever unknown points in their development, the meanings of the rituals start to sink in, the younger children get a head-start in their proper relationship with God, the Mystery of the Eucharist, and the need we all have to Worship Him as he Commands.
-It is also an opportunity for seasoned (or grands), to chip in and help larger families, by deliberately sitting around them(when we feel like making the big sacrifice), offering up the distractions, and after Mass, providing them with friendship, encouragement and guidance– such as where parenting techniques are failing regularly, causing unnecessary extra distractions.
-Parents can impress their children with the Real Presence at very young ages, by instructing them at home first. We did that with drawings and old missals, and then followed up by always having our toddlers’ heads pointed in the direction of the chalice at the elevation, whispering “Jesus is in that cup” –It was amazing how much of an impression such a simple thing as that, made on them for life. Next to seeing them all safely in heaven, seeing their children guiding others that way, was the best reward we could conceive, for our efforts as young parents, in those ways.
– We did things like give them tastier snacks in the car after Mass, if they responded well to reminders in Church, and people would sometimes comment on how well-behaved they all were–not realizing of course, the impact of the few times we had to take one out to the parking lot and administer a little “stronger reminder) But when kids know Dad or Mom is willing to interrupt what they are doing, and make their deliberate disruptions more unpleasant for them, than they are for anyone else, they soon learn what’s in their best interest, and after a time, only a certain “look” is necessary to banish that devil in most. (Can’t speak for all situations, as there are many exceptions to parenting “rules”, but the Biblical “rod” is a good tool, IOHO’s)
-Youthful impressions really stick with children, and can help bring out vocations to the priesthood or religious life, as later “fruits”.
In light of all that, we made the decision to be in favor or families of any size coming to Church together. As long as they TRY to control things.
-Keeping in mind It’s perfectly okay to complain to them if and when they don’t on a regular basis..
Sorry for the length, but this is an important part of who we are, and why the Church needs God’s help so badly right now. Nothing makes us angrier than the thought of one of these little ones, entering a Confessional with a non-believing or modernist priest, and coming out changed in their understanding of truth. Ora pro nobis Virgo Maria.
p.s. We didn’t go into the rich rewards for the couple AS a couple, which are also a part of attending together, but that is a factor as well. They hear the same homily, and men and women pick up different things to enrich everyone in the family- just one example.
Yes, If, it would be best to make it clear in your title that you are two persons, a married couple, writing together.
The Cardinal is but doing his grave duty as a Catholic, a priest and a bishop. The pope and all bishops and priests ought to be doing likewise.
Brilliant!!!!
We don’t want a Council!!!! Two reasons: we’re still reeling from the last one; and the participants will be even more heterodox than the last lot.
–
What we really need in the Church as a whole is a period of calm, and quiet. Unfortunately part of the Satan-sown confusion is the constant barrage of noise and nonsense coming out of the hierarchy.
IF, I’ll be so disappointed if you capitulate!!!! But I guess if that’s what it would take to get us back to something a tad more relevant I’ll go along.
–
Dear Daddy (Louie) please put up another post so we’ll have something new to play with!!!
Dear Lynda,
Amen. They should all be doing it.
Dear Barbara,
We too shudder at the thought of another “modernist” council, but realize that the only way to get BeGOGlio out is for the hierarchy to declare him other than a valid Pope. If that means another conclave to elect a new Pope, so be it.
We’ll take our chances, realizing that the current situation has brought out strongly voiced opposition and much division, which those who know the Truth have obviously found encouraging and instructive.
-Our Lady of Fatima PROMISED in the name of God that in the end her heart will triumph. We need a converted Francis or a new Pope who does not have a distorted image of Christ. So far, we haven’t seen any signs of conversion, so we’re willing to take our chances on the other option, while continuing to pray.
@Ever Mindful: I don’t know if you realize it or not, but your comment was ironic in that it had meanings on two different levels. An example of irony is spelled out in a wiki entry:
–
“Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear & shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders’ incomprehension.”
–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
–
How was your statement ironic? You wrote “spotting indignus famulus” in reference to the fact that you now know where IF got his/her/its screen name.
–
So “spotting indignus famulus” can be interpreted as merely a simple recognition on your part that you now know where IF got his/her/its screen name. That is the simple, straightforward meaning of your statement, and the meaning most people will attach to your statement.
–
So, you may say, Ever Mindful, thats all I meant! Not so fast. You are participating in a comment thread, and you should anticipate that readers may perceive that in the context of this comment thread your message may work on more than one level, even if that is not what you intended, There will be readers of this thread who know that statements can have more than one meaning, and will be sensitive to those different levels of meaning even if you are not.
–
So
Dear Barbara,
No need to be disappointed, OR to view it as giving in to group pressure on something we think we should do otherwise.
We live by truth, and are always ready to capitulate to it. The truth is, we were too inexperienced on the internet when we signed on here, to realize that posting together under a name that doesn’t make that clear, would cause confusion of any kind.
-Not everyone grasps it as quickly as you did from context, and not everyone reads here regularly enough to do that easily. That has obviously left some scratching their heads or thinking indignus famulus is not living up to the name and instead is an “individual” who thinks of himself /herself as Pope, King, or Queen. A couple of others have mentioned this to us in the past, and we gave a quick explanation, and failed to think more about it.
-So, it’s a VALID point. And it’s simple charity to fix it –as long as it doesn’t require us to split up and try to post separately, which we’re not going to do.
-So, for now, we’re keeping the name the same, and referring to ourselves in the first line or two of every post to a newcomer, as “we grandparents” or some such clear indicator. (We love that title, anyway, and have EARNED it, so it’s no real problem for us) 🙂 🙂
And “indignum famulum Conjuges” just didn’t seem to cut it.
Dear Barbara,
We’ve seen this sort of thing happen here, before, and are maybe a tad less worried about it side-tracking everything than you appear to be. There’s a lot to be said for Christians remaining charitable under fire, and there are examples provided in interchanges that get heated, of what is best to do and what is best to avoid, from which everyone reading here can benefit. Granted it can go on “forever”. So we’re thankful God provided a seasoned playground supervisor or two to chip in, as well. Our point is there’s good to be found in much that seems tedious at times.
No worries…I was kidding! (and you are way too charitable – you’re making me look bad!!)
–
P.S. how do you put in the emoticons?
Dear Barbara,
Thanks for the laugh!
The two emoticons we know:
Smiley Face= Colon hyphen right parenthesis : – ) (with no spaces)
Winking Face= Semicolon hyphen right parenthesis
🙂 😉
@Ever Mindful: I don’t know if you realize it or not, but your comment was ironic in that it had meanings on two different levels. An example of irony is spelled out in a wiki entry:
–
“Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear & shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders’ incomprehension.”
–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
–
How was your statement ironic? You wrote “spotting indignus famulus” in reference to the fact that you now know where IF got his/her/its screen name.
–
So “spotting indignus famulus” can be interpreted as merely a simple recognition on your part that you now know where IF got his/her/its screen name. That is the simple, straightforward, surface meaning of your statement, and the meaning most people will attach to your statement.
–
So, you may say, Ever Mindful, thats all I meant! Not so fast!. You are participating in a comment thread, and you should anticipate that readers may perceive that in the context of this comment thread your message may work on more than one level, even if that is not what you intended. There will be readers of this thread who know that statements can have more than one meaning, and will be sensitive to those different levels of meaning even if you are not.
–
So how else can “spotting indignus famulus” be interpreted? “Spotting indignus famulus” can also be interpreted as IF has been spotted as an agenda-driven commenter on these threads. Careful reading of his/her/its comments will make one recognize that he/she/it has set-in-stone beliefs, e.g., that the NO mass is a perfectly acceptable Catholic mass even if the fruits of the NO mass are rotten or the definition of the NO mass set forth in the original GIRM that accompanied its promulgation in 1969 contradicted a canon of the Council of Trent. Even if these are brought to IF’s attention, he/she/it will continue to argue that he/she/it should be allowed to continue to attend the NO mass.
–
As an aside, some background information. It is well known that mass attendance is way down, and that sacrileges occur frequently at NO masses -even at papal NO masses. It may not be well known, though, that the original GIRM that accompanied the promulgation of the NO mass in 1969 postulated an heretical definition of the mass. In No. 7, the original GIRM set forth the following definition of the mass:
–
“7. The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ’s promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: ‘Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst’ (Mt. 18:20).”
–
Why is this definition problematic? Because the Council of Trent issued the following canon:
–
Canon III. If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema.
—
Note, the 1969 GIRM in its essential definition of the mass says nothing about the Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice, rather. it identifies the NO mass as a memorial meal! That is why the innovators replaced the altar with a table in the manner of Cranmer. So, how does the NO mass NOT run afoul canon III and other canons from session XXII of the Council of Trent?
–
Aside over; back to a discussion of the ironic content of your statement.
–
Now, Ever Mindful, the part of the TLM you reproduced in your comment, that accentuates its ironic nature is the offertory. The TLM offertory prayer (already reproduced by you) says this:
–
“P: Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen.”
–
The NO mass replaced the TLM offertory prayer with this:
–
“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.”
–
There is a similar prayer in the NO for the wine.
–
The TLM offertory prayer spells out in precise detail traditional Catholic theology of the Mass – that a priest (“indignus famulus” (!!!!!)) offers a propitiatory sacrfice in the first instance for his own sins, and in the second instance for the sins of those present and further for all faithful christians, whether living or dead.
–
The NO offertory prayers (apparently taken from a jewish source) eliminates any reference to a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. Further, it blurs the distinction between the presider and the congregation by group references (“we”, “us”). Notice it also eliminates the reference that the offering is made on behalf of all FAITHFUL christians, whether living or dead. It also states that the bread and wine become “the bread of life” and “our spiritual drink.” Traditional Catholic theology teaches us that the bread and winde don’t just spiritually become the body and blood of Our Lord, that they substantially become the body and blood of Our Lord!
–
Why was the offertory prayer of the TLM replaced with a prayer that makes no mention of Catholic theology of the mass, the priesthood, etc.? For ECUMENICAL reasons! The innovators were dead set on attracting the protestants to the Church, and adopted anathematized (by Trent) innovations to accomplish their ends! So that is why many traditionalists want the NO mass abolished – because it contains elements of protestant rites that our Catholic forefathers chose to go to the stake and die a martyr rather than to participate in.
–
Now, a careful review of this thread will reveal that IF has religiously avoided discussing these issues. He/she/it has been asked this question:
–
“It is noted that you never address the doctrinal deficiencies of the NO, and leave your opinion at, for example, that the prayers of the TLM are superior. In your opinion, are the prayers of the NO inferior because they are a faithful, but comparatively (when compared to the TLM) unsuccessful expression of the Catholic faith, or are the prayers of the NO inferior because the prayers either/or both of are intentionally equivocal on Catholic teaching (e.g., the real presence of Our Lord), or adopt protestant errors regarding the nature of the mass (the mass is a communal meal commemorating the sacrifice of Our Lord and not a re-presentation in the present time of that sacrifice), the nature of the priesthood.”
–
and he/she/it studiously refuses to answer the question.
–
So IF certainly has been spotted as an agenda-driven commenter! My only question is why IF chose a screen name (“indignus famulus”) from the TLM that refers to the priest offering the mass!
Dear Ever mindful,
We noticed the continuation of Cyprians tirade and false accusations against us, directed at you below, apparently because of your kind words to us. We’re sorry you were subjected to that, and did some research that may help him.
___
He gives a good example below, of the reason we avoid discussing more technical lists of things about the Mass, and prefer to rely on people like Cardinal Burke, who understands Canon Law, has a great knowledge of Church History, and says there is nothing sinful or invalid about the N.O.
___
Cyprian takes a Council of Trent condemnation of anyone who describes the Mass as not being the propitiatory sacrifice, and misapplies it to the N.O definition of the Mass, by interpreting the N.O. definition to mean something other than it does. (likely from a comparative list he saw).
Here are the facts: we found. This one doesn’t seem too hard: to understand without a theology degree
___
in the GIRM 1969 it says:
7. Cena dominica sive Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum.
7. The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, THE PRIEST PRESIING, TO CELEBRATE THE MEMORIAL OF THE LORD……”
— Acccording to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that MEMORIAL OF THE LORD, that Cyprian claims is just “a memorial of :A MEAL!”
is actually:
610 ..429 On the eve of his Passion, while still free, JESUS TRANSFORMED THIS LAST SUPPER with the apostles INTO THE MEMORIAL OF HIS VOLUNTARY OFFERING TO THE FATHER FOR THE SALVATION OF MEN: THIS IS MY BODY….which is given for you.” “THIS IS MY BLOOD of the covenant, which is poured out for many FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” 430
AND
611 THE EUCHARIST THAT CHRIST INSTITUTES AT THAT MOMENT will be the MEMORIAL OF HIS SACRIFICE. 431 Jesus includes the apostles in his own offering and bids them perpetuate it. 432 By doing so, the Lord institutes his apostles as priests of the New Covenant: “For their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.” 433
___
AND FURTHER:
ARTICLE 3
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
1323 “AT THE LAST SUPPER, on the night he was betrayed, OUR SAVIOR INSTITUTED the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, A MEMORIAL OF HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION : a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'”135
========
So in all these places, the Catechism defines the Memorial as the Propitiatory Sacrifice, and NOT as just a MEAL, as Cyprian falsely claims.
___
Yet he goes on trying to smear innocent people like us, as having an “agenda” as if we wish to deceive someone, while he deceives people with false definitions that fit his needs to condemn according to the Council of Trent.
Thank God for Cardinals like Burke. May God protect him from falling prey to Satan, so we still have voices of reason to listen to.
___
Dear Cyprian,
Please stop harassing people for not wanting to try to be theologians. You’re not that good at it yourself, apparently, and you’re behaving like an agent of the devil .here and elsewhere. We’re tired of explaining things like this to you.
P.S. to Cyprian,
Our only “agenda” is finding the truth.
The original reason we gave you for not wanting to discuss these matters past the point where they are clear to us, is that it can lead to LOOKING LIKE you’ve proven something as true that is actually false, but we don’t have the knowledge to demonstrate that. Even in THIS case, we were only using available facts as they appear to us. It SEEMS a simpler matter than other issues, but it could be more involved because of some factor we don’t know.
For you to accuse and insult and slap labels on people with very legitimate reasons like ours, is reprehensible behavior. So you’ve created another reason we don’t wish to have a discussion with you, by being so nasty.
We really hope you’ll take a look at how you’re acting, and make an effort to change. You seem to care about the side of the issue you are defending, and if you apply yourself to finding the truth without misleading anyone, you can examine your arguments more carefully, to present them in ways that are not misleading.
@IF: Thank you for finally sharing the basis of your opinion on these matters. My main criticism of you is that you think it is alright to attack someone else’s position but never to set out the details of your own position when you are questioned. That is very annoying.
–
In analyzing your response it is noted:
–
(1) That you never responded to the the first point I advanced – that the fruits of the NO mass are rotten. Our Lord himself taught us as follows:
–
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.” (Matthew 7: 15 – 20)
–
Our Lord was instructing the faithful here that if you are confused about the advisability of some teaching, practice or discipline that is presented to you for adoption, use an empirical approach to gauge the truth of it, and the trustworthiness of those shepherds who advance the the new teaching, practice or discipline. Observe what the results of adopting the teaching or practice is; if the fruits are bad, than the teaching, practice or discipline is not good and those who advance the teaching, practice or discipline are false prophets or ravening wolves.
–
How is this applicable to the current situation? It is beyond dispute that the fruits of the NO mass have been rotten. By every measure, the Church is in decline. If we ignore the fruits of the NO, than we disregard the counsel of Our Lord. Our Lord instructs us in this situation to gauge the results – the results are terrible, so the NO must be the fruit of an evil tree. Further, Our Lord also teaches us that we can gauge the trustworthiness of the shepherds by the fruits of the teachings, practices or disciplines they establish. If the teachings, practice or disciplines bear bad fruit, than those who established them must have been false prophets. By this standard, I am sorry to say, Pope Paul VI must have been a false prophet or ravening wolf. The discipline he established – the NO mass – has been a disaster for the Church so he must have been a false prophet.
–
Anyone who does not recognize or acknowledge the fruits of the NO – e.g., Cardinal Burke – is part of the problem so to speak, and not part of the solution.
–
Finally, Our Lord also warns us that the evil trees which do not bear good fruit will be cut down and cast into the fire. Isn’t that the reality of the conciliar Church? It is in free fall. It is being cut down as witnessed by the parish closings all over the world. Why anyone would want to attach oneself to such a doomed experiment is beyond my understanding.
–
Note, you did not address any of these issues in your response so a fair observer of this debate has to grant me points on this.
–
(2) It is noted that I did not continue to the doctrinal details of the NO mass aspect of my argument until I advanced a fruits argument. It is my belief that the fruits argument is the most important argument, because if the fruits of the NO were good, I would not be here arguing against it. Now that we know that the fruits of the NO are bad, we next have to determine how the NO is deficient.
–
My argument is that Pope St. Pius V and the Church fathers at Trent codified what the essential nature of the Catholic mass is – that it is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Our Lord at Calvary in the present time in which He becomes substantially present in the communion species. The Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice that is offered for the sins of the priest, those present at the Mass, and all orthodox Christians whether living of dead. This formula apparently was pleasing to the Almighty for it bore much fruit in his Church throughout the centuries.
–
I advanced that the prayers of the NO deviate from this theology of the mass and adopt, or at least acquiesce to, certain protestant criticisms of the TLM. Hence, I discussed at length the offertory prayer of the TLM, and compared it to the prayers which were substituted for it in the NO. I noted how the substitute prayers in the NO mass ELIMINATE the propitiatory sacrifice aspect of the mass. You responded in two ways.
(A) You attacked my understanding of the issues by making reference to the fact that I had apparently cribbed these criticisms from a list of deficiencies of the NO mass without properly understanding them. That is not true. My analysis of the issues basically follows the analysis presented to the Pope by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in their famous Ottaviani intervention: This is what the theologians who worked under Archbishop Lefebvre in preparing the intervention had to say about the definition of the NO mass presented by the innovators:
–
“Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the ‘Institutio Generalis’ at the beginning of the second chapter on the Novus Ordo: ‘De structure Missae’:
–
‘The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”, is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt.XvIII,20)’.
–
The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of the ‘supper’, and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8,48, 55d,56). This supper is further characterized as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people’s presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here, the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.
–
In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the already serious equivocation, that there holds good, ’eminently’, for this assembly Christ’s promise that ‘Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them’ (Matt.XVIII,20). This promise which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.”
–
A comparison of the arguments I presented will demonstrate that I tracked the criticisms of the Good Cardinals very closely so I obviously understood them. Hence, your criticism was really in the nature of a personal attack, and did not really address the issues I advanced. As a result, a fair-minded observer of this debated has to grant me points here again, since you really didn’t present an argument.
–
(B) You advanced sections of the Catechism that over and over repeat the “memorial” aspect of the eucharistic rite. Don’t you understand that it is condemned by the Trent canon I presented to view this portion of the Mass as merely a memorial of the sacrifice made by Our Lord at Calvary (“If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only . . . a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice . . . let him be anathema)? Further, the words “propitiatory sacrifice” although possibly implied by the section of the Catechism reproduced by you, don’t appear verbatim in this section either, so we have to take their word for it that we should understand that nothing changed in the understanding of the sacrament at the heart of the mass.
–
But why should we have to look to the catechism for reassurance that the NO is a propitiatory sacrifice? Shouldn’t we be able to read the prayers and observe the milieu and setting of the NO to be reassured that the NO is really a propitiatory sacrifice? But, but, but, many of the prayers that made this aspect of the mass explicit in the TLM have been ELIMINATED in the NO. Further, the milieu for a sacrifice (an altar) has been replaced by a table, and many of the prayers of the NO emphasize the communal memorial meal aspect of the mass, so the best spin we can put on the whole experience is that the propitiatory sacrifice aspect of the mass has been dialed WAY down to the point where it is barely there and the communal memorial meal aspect of the mass has been dialed WAY up! Maybe we are just being overly credulous to even believe those who advanced the new mass and argue that it remains a propitiatory sacrifice because it looks for all intents and purposes like a protestant memorial meal (which is most decidedly not a propitiatory sacrifice) and not a true Catholic sacrifice of the Mass.
–
In other words, if the NO mass tries to be all things to all people, it really can’t be the one thing that it should be!
–
Before ending, I want to reproduce one more section from the Ottaviani intervention that should give you pause:
–
“Since the ‘normative’ Mass (New Mass), now reintroduced and imposed as the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), was in substance rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people—least of all in mission lands—ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and make it acceptable to the Catholic people.
–
The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire’ (pare. 50 Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the various parts of the Mass to be reordered “ut singularum partium propria ratio nec non mutua connexio clarius pateant.” We shall see how the Ordo recently promulgated corresponds with this original intention.
–
An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgment already made with regard to the ‘normative’ Mass. Both have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most Modernists of Protestants.”
–
So, in the estimation of the theologians who wrote the Ottaviani intervention, there was no need for the drastic change represented by the NO mass, a mass that was apparently prepared to appeal to the most Modernist (heretical) of protestants. If that doesn’t jar you, I don’t know what would!
Dear Cyprian,
We see you’re trying to bypass all we said to you, once again here, and true to form, flat out misrepresenting us. As we’ve explained to you on at least three separate occasions, our valid reasons for not wanting to discuss these matters with YOU in particular, we won’t repeat them all now.
___
We didn’t “share our basis” on this issue or any other with you, above.. We responded to Ever mindful with our sympathy for her being attacked by you, as an obvious means of continuing your harassment of us.
You can go on “noting” all the false things you want people to believe. We will be skipping anything you post from now on, unless it starts with some evidence of genuine remorse for all the dishonest “techniques” you formerly employed “win” arguments including especially misstating facts about what others said and did to make them appear at fault or hypocritical.
–It’s a real shame your have not recognized the need to toss out all those evil tools, because we can clearly see the intelligence needed to make use of them, in what you write, and would enjoy engaging in respectful conversation with you, were they not there to make that such an unpleasant experience.
Please think about that, and consider ridding yourself of those burdensome ploys. You don’t need them to share your thoughts in a Catholic manner. We’ve been praying for you, and will continue to do so.
May God bless you.