FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The New Mass, The Mass of the Assembly: the Cradle of Agnosticism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Good stuff
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/10...ss-of.html

Quote:Editorial: Radicati nella fede, September 2015
Newsletter of the Catholic community of
Vocogno, Diocese of Novara, Italy

That which is no longer present in the Mass, inevitably disappears from Catholic life. It is only a matter of time - and not much at that.

This is what has happened with the last liturgical reform: the “empty spaces” of the rite have become the “empty spaces” of a new Christianity.

We’d like to focus on one among the many: the disappearance of the submissa voce for the priest, which corresponds to lack of silence in the assembly. It appears to us that this is one of the points that most evidently indicates a radical change in the Catholic Rite. Then again, it is typically this which appears to be scandalous to the faithful who chance upon the Traditional Mass: the long parts where the priest, especially in the Canon, pronounces the words softly, and the faithful - not being able to hear anything - are obliged to be silent.

We have noticed many times that this is more of a problem than the use of Latin.


And yet, the submissa voce is a determining factor. If it is eliminated, everything changes not only in the Mass, but in Christianity itself.

The submissa voce, for the priest and the corresponding long silence of the faithful, “interlocks” the priest and faithful, with no human support [at all]. The priest at the altar must be present before God, repeating softly Our Lord’s own words,[thus] renewing the Sacrifice of Calvary. It is a direct personal, intimate relationship with God; obviously mediated by orders of the Church, which guards and transmits the words that constitute the form of the Sacrament, yet, in that instant, does not lean upon Her human aspect, but on a miracle of grace. In doing this, the priest in the Traditional Rite, teaches the faithful immediately that it is God Himself Who is the main protagonist, it is His action, it is His salvation and these [graces] reach each one of us personally.

The New Mass is not like this; it’s all about the community. The priest, besides facing the assembly, operates as one who narrates what the Lord did at the Last Supper: he recounts the words and gestures of the Lord to the faithful so that the sacramental action which arises from it, appears entirely mediated by the attention that the assembly are obliged to have. The Canon, this exceedingly personal relationship that the priest has with God at the very heart of the Mass, disappears, and is substituted by the extenuating relationship with those who are present. The new form of community Mass has consequently changed the priest so much, as he is thrown into the most exhausting activism, i.e.; letting his faith and relationship with God be mediated by the faithful. The new Mass has produced a new type of clergy, no longer able to be with God, nor anchored in the act of faith.

The continuous dialogue in the Mass between the priest and the assembly has also modified the very concept of the Church: today we think of the Church as nascent from the lower ranks, from Baptism and thus from the Christian populace; we don’t believe anymore that She is nascent from above, from God, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Those who believe that the Church rises from Baptism, cannot bear that priest on the altar softly pronouncing the words that constitute the miracle of the Sacrament.

Even the faithful are being ruined by the new Rite, being that they are continuously entertained by the priest’s talk and they too have also forgotten how to be still before God. In this way God finds Himself being substituted by the celebrating assembly, which becomes an encumbrance in the teaching of a personal act of faith.

Recently, there has been an attempt to put things right in the modern Mass, by trying (in vain) to reintroduce a bit of silence right after the reading of the Gospel. However, also this measure proves the gravity of the new position. This reintroduced silence, usually very brief, is a human silence of meditation, or rest: it is of a completely different nature than that silence produced by the submissa voce. The submissa voce produces a silence which envelopes the priest’s intimate relationship with God. The priest gives his person [to God] so that the Divine act of salvation occurs. The silence of the submissa voce is centered on the action of God and not on man’s meditation, and is one of the greatest reminders of the primacy of supernatural life and grace.

There is nothing else for it, we need a return to the Mass of ages – for a return to the central position of the act of faith which is the personal response to God’s action. Both the priest and the faithful cannot resist the world if they are not strengthened by this very personal relationship which no assembly can substitute.

The alternative? Real agnosticism: real doubts in the faith, the soul suspended but nonetheless filled by the words of an assembly which ‘entertains’ in order not to think. We dare say it: the new Mass - practically all said aloud, all narration and preaching - has nourished different kinds of agnosticism in both priests and laity, thus, not blocking the drama of apostasy: the actual abandonment of the Christian life.

The New Mass has mislead then, by giving, in the best of cases, some cheap human warmth yet educating [people] poorly from the position of the true faith, something that is absolutely necessary in order to get through the battles of this life.

Let’s go back to the Traditional Mass, first-class training in true Christianity.
Is the NO the only Catholic rite or use where the canon or anaphora is not said silently or behind an iconostasis? (ie is there any other rite or use where it is said aloud without an iconostasis?)
Would be quite interesting to know. Although, I'm sure the monastic rights that modernized after VII are similar to the NO.  From a theological standpoint, versus populum and the spoken canon are just terrible. They pretty much completely destroy the separation of laity and clergy, lessen the mystery of the consecration, remove the sacred silence, and remove the aspect of the priest speaking intimately to God as Christ. Also versus populum is silly since the priest is to be leading the faithful towards God and Heaven. Instead, he faces the people, who face him, where's God?
How is it vain to want to inject some reverence ino the Pauline Missal, or rather,into the celebration of it? It seems legitimate to me. I'm not a fan of the Pauline Mass for the most part, but I've seen how something as simple as using the Propers instead of Haugen/Haas Hymns, using the full Roman Canon or having a period of extended silence during Communion ( instead of music) can build up a better atmosphere that's conducive to prayer.

It's ridiculous to think that a cure all is to return to the 1962 Missal, as if the new Mass in and of itself produces a certain type of busy body clergy. The formation of a priest is about much more than what particular Liturgy he offers. Its less about the Liturgy than the man offering it. A priest with a deep interior life will be able to offer the Pauline Mass in a reverent way. I've seen it plenty of times.

Agree with formerbuddhist

There is too much exaggeration at times in these articles. The presence or absence of "submissa voce" cannot per se change everything in Christianity!

When fair criticism is lacking (and we can level a LOT of it against the Pauline Mass), we lose credibility.
The simple fact is how we pray influences us, and what we pray matters. Not sure how this should be very controversial for any Catholic.

The point of the article, it seems to me, is that some adaptations in the NOM towards more reverence just look out of place. If I'm not mistaken Ratzinger makes this exact same point in his Spirit of the Liturgy—the silence some people try to put in the NOM end up looking like not the actual flow of the Ritual but a sort of abrupt interruption, that ends not in adoration but in resuming the going on. To make a bad analogy, the problem is not only the matter of the NOM but its form.

This thing of reform of the reform is ultimately futile. As I said somewhere else, the way the NOM exists is as a consumer product and not as liturgy. Making changes to reform the NOM would not create liturgy in the proper sense, and thus a proper liturgical community, but it would be ultimately the expression of one's will—an option among options.


One curiosity that I had: is it common in other places the Canon (or whatever is the equivalent) being a sort of dialogue? Around here it is, and is utterly annoying.
(10-15-2015, 04:46 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]It's ridiculous to think that a cure all is to return to the 1962 Missal, as if the new Mass in and of itself produces a certain type of busy body clergy. The formation of a priest is about much more than what particular Liturgy he offers. Its less about the Liturgy than the man offering it. A priest with a deep interior life will be able to offer the Pauline Mass in a reverent way. I've seen it plenty of times.

I don't know about the clergy, but the new Mass sure seems to produce a busybody laity. For example, There are so many responses for the laity at the new Mass, but they are mostly meant for just the server at the Tridentine Mass.  Many lay people who go to the Tridentine Mass say the responses, but that isn't actually called for in the Missal.  I think that with all that talking we can easily forget to listen.
Renatus,

I have read that in some SSPX masses they have something called a Dialogue Mass, so I suppose the NOM version is meant in some way to be a modern version of it. I have never seen one, but it sounded like a legitimate TLM. I would hate it myself.
(10-15-2015, 09:09 PM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]Renatus,

I have read that in some SSPX masses they have something called a Dialogue Mass, so I suppose the NOM version is meant in some way to be a modern version of it. I have never seen one, but it sounded like a legitimate TLM. I would hate it myself.

You mean people reciting the Credo, Gloria, Domine non sum dignus, etc?
That's pretty standard here, specially at Low Masses. I find it very annoying. Especially because of the yellers. Though I myself whisper some of the responses to myself, just because (the suscipiat dominus, domine non sum etc.)

What I was asking has no parallel in the TLM. The Canon is always silent. But here at NOMs, after the Preface there's still a bunch of responses. For instance, at one point the priest asks God to sanctify the species, and the crowd responds asking God the same thing. Or after consecration the priest says something about the mystery of the faith and the crowd responds another thing, and so on.
I've heard from someone once that this was a Brazilian anomaly, in the rest of the world what is taken in the place of the Canon is only prayed by the priest.
By the way, I love how flabbergasted NO folk become when some priest prays the Canon in Latin at a NOM. LOL
Between the Sanctus and the "Great Amen" at the NOM I've only ever seen the laity response for the "Mystery of Faith." I personally can't stand both. The Mystery of Faith response completely breaks the reverence of what just took place (especially when there's a cheesy tune associated with it) and the so called "Great Amen" is the same. 

On another note, injecting reverence into the NOM helps, but it surely doesn't cure the ills. I've seen when priests insert some long silences in the NOM and it does nothing except just seem like the priest is taking a long time to move on. At best it fits after the homily. Even at Communion time if the priest sits down after giving everyone the Eucharist and he sits there in prayer for a minute, you see everyone sitting in the pew (because God forbid people continue to kneel until the priest says "Let us Pray") impatiently waiting for the priest to finish up the Mass.

It just doesn't work. Between the texts, rubrics, and the flow of the two Masses, you can only dress up the NOM so much. If every NOM was done perfectly with ad orientem, the Canon (which is almost never used btw), communion on the tongue while kneeling, and all the smells and bells, it's still deficient. By it's very design, it's made to greatly reduce the sacrificial, penitential, and Eucharistic aspects as well as blur the lines between clergy and laity. We can even see in the NOM how the people and priest have so many prayers that they say as a community. In TLM there are a grand total of zero such prayers.
Pages: 1 2