Pope Francis The Old Mass is Untouchable!
#31
(05-30-2013, 09:21 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(05-29-2013, 11:16 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(05-29-2013, 08:07 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(05-28-2013, 10:10 PM)Geremia Wrote: His "more emancipated formation" reflects a completely different, contradicting theology than what the pre-Vatican II Mass does.

I think you are overplaying your hand here. There has been no indication thus far that Pope Francis is in any contradiction to any teaching of the theology of the Mass.
He says a Novus Ordo, no? The Novus Ordo upholds a very different theology than the Usus Antiquior, as the Ottaviani Intervention shows and Abp. Lefebvre's "Luther's Mass" lecture shows.

I still hold that you are overplaying your hand. "Completely different" and "contradicting" are now "very different". I would say they are very similar, or in essential agreement. Cut from the same cloth, but with different emphases. Same theology. Different emphases.

What is similar about them?  This is an important question for Catholics, isn't it? It is true that the way the mass is described by the popes pre and post novus ordo is very similar - indeed, "in essential agreement."  Recent and old popes say the new and old mass does the same thing, mostly.  At least enough to be fairly characterized as "similar." 

The two masses in practice look and sound very different, however.  We might peer into the deep recesses of the Church and find a novus ordo here or there that resembles an old mass, but let's stick to the generic mass that we're likely to hear and St. Mary's church in Middletown, USA, or for that matter, Snta Maria's in Medio del Campo, Spain. 

The new mass, while fundamentally similar in effect (so we are assured) to the old mass, is also fundamentally similar to the eucharist service offered in the Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and some evangelical communities.  At least insofar as it sounds, in the words used, the songs sung.    The many articles about the understanding and belief of modern Catholic faithful suggests that the people in these communities think about the eucharist in the same way that many, if not most, Catholics think about their mass:  that is a holy celebration whereby we commemorate the death of the Lord Jesus.  The esoteric belief in transubstantiation is weak, at best.  The the less esoteric understanding that the eucharist transmits grace to the believer who receives it is also weak. 

These questions are important, because we should know if the similarity to Protestant eucharist services and the shifting of belief and emphasis is intentional.  If they are intentional. then Scriptorium is still correct (or  still can be said to be correct) that the new and old mass is "fundamentally" the same, but in a different way than he probably intends.  It would be true that the mass remains the central sacrament of the Church.  It would not be true that the Church retains the same understanding of the sacrament.  Or rather, whether the Church retains the same exclusive understanding of the sacrament that it appeared to have pre novus ordo. 

Whether this is good or bad is somewhat beside the point of Scriptorium's observation, and a question for another thread.  A thread, perhaps, more in keeping with St Cecelia Girl's post above?     
Reply
#32
(05-30-2013, 09:21 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: I still hold that you are overplaying your hand. "Completely different" and "contradicting" are now "very different". I would say they are very similar, or in essential agreement. Cut from the same cloth, but with different emphases. Same theology. Different emphases.
The New Mass essentially breaks with Catholic Tradition. This is what Pope Paul VI's #1 man, Card. Ottaviani, wrote in his intervention to Pope Paul VI on September 25th, 1969 (cf. also the XXII Session of the Council of Trent). He shows that the "law" or "way of praying" (lex orandi) in the Novus Ordo Mass changes the "law of belief" (lex credendi) to something not in continuity with Catholic Tradition but appealing to Modernists and Protestants.
    Here are some observations:
[table]  [tr] [td]Lex orandi of Novus Ordo Mass
[/td] [td]Lex credendi of Novus Ordo Mass
[/td] [td]Lex orandi of Catholic Mass
[/td] [td]Lex credendi of Catholic Mass[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Communion received standing and in the hand
[/td] [td]The Holy Trinity is not truly but only symbolically present in His body, blood, soul and divinity.
The Mass is just a meal, the Host being nothing more than bread.
      Arch-heretic Cranmer instituted communion in the hand for his Protestant service to emphasize, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that it is just a supper and that the consecrated bread and wine are merely symbols of God's presence.
      Mother Teresa considered the widespread practice of Communion in the hand the greatest problem afflicting the world today.
      Record low numbers of Catholics believe in the Real Presence.
[/td] [td]Communion received kneeling and on the tongue
[/td] [td]The Holy Trinity is truly and substantially present in His body, blood, soul and divinity under the veil of bread or wine.
Only a priest's fingers are consecrated to touch the consecrated Host.
[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Priest facing the people (versus populum)
[/td] [td]The Mass is more about the congregation (anthropocentric) than God (theocentric).
The priest has no special role; he's just a man like the rest of us.
      I used to think the congregation was necessary to effect Consecration, but this belongs to the priest alone; in fact, a priest can say Mass and consecrate without a congregation.
[/td] [td]Priest facing the tabernacle (ad orientem or "towards East")
[/td] [td]Priests only (not the laity) are needed to be sacerdotes (lit. "givers of the sacred").
A priest is an alter Christi ("another Christ"); he mediates between God and man.
      A proper understanding of the priesthood leads to more priestly vocations; this is why traditional seminaries and orders continue to grow. (See these statistics and how the growth of traditional seminaries is overtaking the growth diocesan ones in Europe.)
[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Tabernacle often placed in another room
[/td] [td]God is not the center of Mass.
People are the center.
      This is idolatry.
[/td] [td]Tabernacle the center of the liturgical space
[/td] [td]God must be the center of our lives.
[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Gregorian chant rarely sung; profane music used instead; pipe organs rare
[/td] [td]The Mass should be entertaining.
      The Second Vatican Council's document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, said that Gregorian chant "should be given pride of place in liturgical services" (§116) and "the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem" (§120).
[/td] [td]Gregorian chant sung at most Masses
[/td] [td]We participate in Mass by our internal actions of prayer more so than our by our external actions.
      "Active participation" (actuosa participatio) originally meant singing Gregorian chant (source).
[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Communion under both species (bread and wine)
[/td] [td]We receive "more God" by communicating under both species.
Meal aspect emphasized
[/td] [td]Communion under one species only
[/td] [td]God is 100% present under both species.
[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Sacrificial aspect de-emphasized[/td] [td]The Mass is a community meal gathering.
      Pope Paul VI's 1969 General Instruction emphasizes "supper" (see this).
[/td] [td]Sacrificial nature of Mass emphasized
[/td] [td]The Mass is a sacrifice.
[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Prayers mentioning judgement, hell, sacrifice, or whatever else might offend modern man's sensibilities frequently cut when devising the New Mass.
[/td] [td]Everyone will go to heaven.
Original sin de-emphasized
Confession not necessary for receiving Communion
There is salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Religious indifferentism
False ecumenism
[/td] [td]Prayers emphasize the four last things: death, judgment, heaven, hell
[/td] [td]The sacraments are necessary for salvation, and there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Missionary spirit
[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Priest says entire Mass in an audible voice
[/td] [td]The congregation co-consecrates with the priest.
      Read about the Council of Pistoia and Pope Pius VI's bull Auctorem Fidei condemning it.
[/td] [td]Priest says some parts of the Mass in silence; silence immediately before, during, and immediately after consecration[/td] [td]Some prayers of the Mass are proper to the priest only.
We hear God best in silence, as did Elijah.
[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Priest can pick and choose Mass's prayers; Mass is creative; Roman Canon rarely said
[/td] [td]Catholics can pick and choose what they want to believe in.
The Mass turns into a creation of man rather than a gift from God.
      "Heresy" means "choice" in Greek.
[/td] [td]Rubrics followed meticulously
[/td] [td]We must believe and do exactly what the Church tells us to believe and do.
We must love God's commandments.
      Matt. 5,48: "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."
[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Altar girls
[/td] [td]The Church will ordain female priests in the future.
[/td] [td]Only men allowed in sanctuary
[/td] [td]Men must be manly spiritual leaders and not relegate their responsibility to women.
[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Kiss of peace
[/td] [td]All humans give each other God's peace.
Naturalistic conception of peace
[/td] [td]Only the celebrant says "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum" to the congregation.
[/td] [td]True peace only comes from Christ through His apostolic Church.
[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Latin rarely used[/td] [td]The Mass has become more profane, less dignified.
    If people used to speak to worldly kings in Latin as a sign of respect, how much more should we use dignified and sacred language when speaking to Christ the King at Mass?
[/td] [td]Latin entirely used (except for Kyrie)
[/td] [td] Baltimore Catechism says this about Latin:
Quote: Q. 566. Why does the Church use the Latin language instead of the national language of its children?
A. The Church uses the Latin language instead of the national language of its children:
  • To avoid the danger of changing any part of its teaching in using different languages;
  • That all its rulers may be perfectly united and understood in their communications;
  • To show that the Church is not an institute of any particular nation, but the guide of all nations.
See Fr. Nikolaus Gihr The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass "The Language Used in the Celebration of the Holy Mass" [/td] [/tr]  [/table]
Pope Benedict XVI's motu propro Summorum Pontificum says that the "Extraordinary Form" of the Roman Rite was never abrogated, and he likely terms it "extraordinary" because it has greater extrinsic value or merit (valor extrinsicus, cf. "The Merit of a Mass").
Reply
#33
(05-30-2013, 12:05 PM)Geremia Wrote: Pope Benedict XVI's motu propro Summorum Pontificum says that the "Extraordinary Form" of the Roman Rite was never abrogated, and he likely terms it "extraordinary" because it has greater extrinsic value or merit (valor extrinsicus, cf. "The Merit of a Mass").

Or he named it that way because it is not what is "ordinary".  Because otherwise EMHC's would have greater extrinsic value or merit, no?
Reply
#34
Geremia,
Wherever you got your cut and paste, it is rather pedestrian. Little of it addresses theology, but more addresses errors which arise from options, practices, etc. Some are non sequiturs. For instance, saying the Mass aloud does not theologically teach co-consecration. Saying the consecration together would. And the priest receives standing and in the hand, so does that deny the Holy Trinity? I am not asking for answers. They are rhetorical questions. There have been many heresies which arose from the milieu of the traditional Mass, including el Luther himself. Any holy thing can be abused and used for ill. Have a discussion. Don't just cut and paste some table someone made to draw a few people through knee-jerk reaction.
Reply
#35
Yeah, not the best list of points there... most of those are aesthetic. From a recent research paper I did (and for the record, I attend the NO most weekends, as the TLM is a good distance away for this poor college student...)

Offertory:
With the Dominus vobiscum after the credo, the Mass of the Catechumens/Liturgy of the Eucharist begins with the offertory. In the Extraordinary Form, this rite’s arrangement and liturgical texts are over a thousand years old, originating from South Africa at the time of Augustine of Canterbury. By the time of Pius V’s codification of the offertory prayers in 1570, there was already an understood threefold purpose behind their use. They convey that (1) the sacrifice is prepared, (2) it is directed towards a determinate end, and (3) that the offering of the sacrifice is begun. The offertory prayers also speak of the host and chalice as a sacrificial or immaculate victim, even though the consecration has not yet begun. This anticipatory language is also seen in the Divine Liturgies of John Chrysostom, St. James, and St. Basil—all used by Eastern Catholics, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Christians,9 and was rejected by most Protestant denominations, starting with Martin Luther.

Below are the Offertory prayers for the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms. In the EF we see that all three purposes are expressed; (1) with hanc immaculatam hostiam...offero ego...this immaculate host...I offer...(2) pro innumerabilius peccatis...defunctis...for my innumerable sins...and for all living and dead... and (3) ...profíciat ad salútem in vitam ætérnam...for salvation unto life everlasting.

EF:
Suscipe, sancte Pater,
omnipotens ætérne Deus,
hanc immaculátam hóstiam,
quam ego indígnus fámulus tuus
óffero tibi Deo meo vivo et vero,
pro innumerabílibus peccátis,
et offensiónibus, et neglegéntiis meis,
et pro ómnibus circumstántibus,
sed et pro ómnibus fidélibus
christiánis vivis atque defúnctis:
ut mihi, et illis profíciat ad salútem in vitam ætérnam.

OF:
Benedictus es, Dòmine,
Deus univèrsi, quia de tua largitàte accèpimus panem,
quem tibi offèrimus,
fructum terrae
et òperis mànuum hòminum: ex quo nobis fiet
panis vitae.

As can be seen, the Offertory of the Ordinary Form is much shorter. The full text is “Blessed are you Lord God of all creation, for through your works we have received the bread we offer you/fruit of the earth, and work of human hands, it will become for us, the bread of life.”

This offertory prayer is taken from the post-temple Judaism Seder meal blessing. Cardinal Ottaviani also noted with concern that expressions in the new offertory such as “the bread of life” were indeterminate and that “According to the new definition of the Mass, Christ is only spiritually present...bread and wine are not...substantially changed.” The three means mentioned above of the sacrifice being prepared, that it is directed towards a determinate end, and that the offering of the sacrifice is begun is near absent.
Reply
#36
(05-30-2013, 12:39 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Wherever you got your cut and paste, it is rather pedestrian. Little of it addresses theology, but more addresses errors which arise from options, practices, etc.
Isn't that the whole point of lex credendi, lex ordandi?
(05-30-2013, 12:39 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Some are non sequiturs. For instance, saying the Mass aloud does not theologically teach co-consecration.
Still, Auctorem Fidei forbids it.
(05-30-2013, 12:39 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Saying the consecration together would.
This unfortunately happens…
(05-30-2013, 12:39 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: And the priest receives standing and in the hand, so does that deny the Holy Trinity?
How would it? The priest act in persona Christi.
(05-30-2013, 12:39 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: I am not asking for answers. They are rhetorical questions.
You don't care to discuss the theology?
(05-30-2013, 12:39 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: There have been many heresies which arose from the milieu of the traditional Mass, including el Luther himself. Any holy thing can be abused and used for ill.
Yes
(05-30-2013, 12:39 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Have a discussion. Don't just cut and paste some table someone made to draw a few people through knee-jerk reaction.
I wrote that table. I didn't "just cut and paste some table someone made." If you don't want to discuss it, then don't.
Reply
#37
(05-30-2013, 12:44 PM)OzarkCatholic Wrote: In the Extraordinary Form, this rite’s arrangement and liturgical texts are over a thousand years old, originating from South Africa at the time of Augustine of Canterbury.

South Africa?
Reply
#38
(05-30-2013, 02:05 PM)Warrenton Wrote:
(05-30-2013, 12:44 PM)OzarkCatholic Wrote: In the Extraordinary Form, this rite’s arrangement and liturgical texts are over a thousand years old, originating from South Africa at the time of Augustine of Canterbury.

South Africa?

I know, right? I wish I had the quote, but there's the page and source:  Jungmann, Josef A., and Francis A. Brunner. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia). New York: Benziger, 1951. Print. Pages 27-8
Reply
#39
(05-30-2013, 02:20 PM)OzarkCatholic Wrote:
(05-30-2013, 02:05 PM)Warrenton Wrote:
(05-30-2013, 12:44 PM)OzarkCatholic Wrote: In the Extraordinary Form, this rite’s arrangement and liturgical texts are over a thousand years old, originating from South Africa at the time of Augustine of Canterbury.

South Africa?

I know, right? I wish I had the quote, but there's the page and source:  Jungmann, Josef A., and Francis A. Brunner. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia). New York: Benziger, 1951. Print. Pages 27-8

It must either mean some city in the southern Roman province of Africa or its a typographical or translation error.  There was no Catholic Church in South Africa 1,000 years ago, since Europeans didn't regularly navigate around the Cape of Good Hope until the 1400s. 
Reply
#40
Quote:I wrote that table. I didn't "just cut and paste some table someone made." If you don't want to discuss it, then don't.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/moderni...dendi.html

If this is your webpage, then I suppose you did write it.

Edit: Actually, I just found that it was your webpage. Sorry.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)