My experience at the NO
#41
(01-25-2012, 10:45 AM)Petertherock Wrote: So, I went to the NO Mass for the first time in well over a year this morning. I went to the Church where I go to make visits to the Blessed Sacrament. I know the priest there and he is very good and as traditional as you get for the NO. He actually veils the crucifix and statues during Holy Week which is the first time I have ever seen that in the NO.

Anyway, I brought my Little Office book with me so I could pray the office before Mass. Father was also praying the Office when I walked into the Church. When Father came out for Mass he started Mass by reciting the Angelus at the foot of the Altar (technically that was before Mass began.) I liked the new translation. It is a lot better than the old translation. Although there were a few people who were still saying the old responses. The only thing I didn't like was they had a woman reader reading the Epistle, the Psalm and the Alleluia. But if that's the worst thing then I can deal with it.

It was the Feast of St. Pau's conversion so it was nice. Also, in the Missal a few things I liked was instead of the "opening prayer" they call it the Collect which I like. Also, in the Missal they have little descriptions of the different parts of the Mass and before the Consecration they make sure to emphasize that this is the Sacrifice of Calvary. Obviously I am not going to stop going to the TLM...the NO Mass still feels so lacking and indeed it is lacking in the richness of the TLM, but at least I have the Graces of being able to receive Communion and worship God more than once a week. At least I found a Mass I can go to without my blood boiling from all the abuses.

imo, an informed Catholic, whether he/she styles him/herself orthodox or trad, can indeed assist a reverent weekday NO Mass to feed a spiritual hunger without putting the soul in danger.

Good for you.
Reply
#42
(01-26-2012, 12:19 AM)Norbert Wrote: I see nothing more rational here than "nuh-uh".  What makes the opinion of people who view the NO as intrinsically evil better than the irritation and refusal of the TLM manifested in 16th century Germany.  More importantly, why does the opinion (reflected nowhere outside of Sede communities and perhaps portions of the SSPX) that the NO is intrinsically evil/spiritually harmful hold such sway here when it can be demonstrably proven that there are trads like PtR and myself who receive spiritual benefit/consolation from it?  No one is denying the superiority of the TLM here. 

Fact 1) The TLM was a codified form of a rite that had long prevailed and had developed organically
Fact 2) The NO is bodge job of random bits and pieces from everywhere
Fact 3) Quo Primum allowed rites and customs which had prevailed for 200 years to remain
Fact 4) The TLM was designed to protect the mass from heresy and heterodoxy by tightening up the rubrics
Fact 5) The NO does the exact opposite despite the wide spread heresy and heterodoxy of our world
Fact 6)The TLM was designed to preserve the Catholic truth, the NO on the other hand was the instrument of a heterodox council infected by the spirit of liberalism and modernism
Fact 7) The NO is indisputably similar to Cranmers and Luthers mass's
Fact 8 ) The NO has within the last 40 years led to abuses that were unheard of in Church history

None of the above is a 'nuh-uh' if you cannot see that there is no point continuing this discussion.

As for why the view of the NO being intrinsically sinful and flawed prevails, perhaps because its true!  :)

It is entirely irrelevant what consolation you do or don't get feel you get from the NO, feelings are irrelevant and frankly your statement smacks of modernism, Buddists feel they get consolation in Budhha, Protestants in their services, Anglicans in their 'masses' etc... The traitorious clergy in France who signed an oath to the revolutionary government no doubt had valid masses too but that does not mean one should attend them or the gallician rites of Jansenists in France.
Reply
#43
(01-26-2012, 12:19 AM)Norbert Wrote: I see nothing more rational here than "nuh-uh".  What makes the opinion of people who view the NO as intrinsically evil better than the irritation and refusal of the TLM manifested in 16th century Germany.  More importantly, why does the opinion (reflected nowhere outside of Sede communities and [b]perhaps portions [/b]of the SSPX) that the NO is intrinsically evil/spiritually harmful hold such sway here when it can be demonstrably proven that there are trads like PtR and myself who receive spiritual benefit/consolation from it?  No one is denying the superiority of the TLM here. 

With all respect that is due Norbert, I am compelled to say that I do not bode well with indefinites or opinions not based on facts.
That aside. With respect to the FSSPX, they have not said that the NO mass is intrinsically evil.
Personally, I know the NO mass is doubtful and is a potential risk. But I will never say that it is intrinsically evil.
4 main risks: I am not saying that his will happen, I am saying the risk is there 100 times more this happening  in a NO mass than when attending any TLM.

1.- The ambiance= Irreverence to our Lord
2.- Liturgy: The abuses. The women Ministers, lectors, singers (now hear my high C !), the clapping, dancing, kissing, hand shakes, skirts, miniskirts, tattoos, shorts, sandals. There is more, but I'm getting tired.
3.- Doctrine: Nice sermon father, so can you repeat to me when are we allowed to extraordinarily attend a "Christian worship service"?  
Oh, when is the LGBT Catholic gathering again?   Buddhism is a extraordinary means of salvation? Cool!
4.- Doubt of intention of the priest. (Again, this is a risk. But due to the open doors for abuses in the NO, one can inferir infer that this risk is by and large in the NO)

Are there exceptions to attend an NO mass without the fear of risk and doubt: NEVER.
We drive 4 hours to get to TLM on Sunday (one way), There are plenty of NO parishes and chapels on the way.
I have children and one teenager. I have thought to myself, do I risk it and go to an NO. It's just 3 cuadras (blocks) away from my house.
Is the NO mass EVIL? NO. Is it a potential risk to my soul? it might. Depending on the mass. Do you want to risk your wife's and children's souls on that "might"?
If I have the means to go to the TLM, I go to the TLM.  
The moment that I found the TLM, the Catholic teachings (real doctrine. not watered down God is love teachings) I would be kidding myself to go back to a NO mass. I would be an accomplice to the irreverence in that mass.  Then how would I answer to Him at the end?

I gave you a car, a house,  I gave you a wife, I gave you 4 children to take care of. I made sure you knew found out about My son's sacrifice through the TLM.
And you went where?

I know He is not going to ask me how many things He gave me in this life. I know He will ask me, what did I use them for.

That's my own opinion.

Oh, here is a link to the stance on the New Mass from the FSSPX.
http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm







Reply
#44
(01-26-2012, 03:00 AM)Tapatio Wrote:
(01-26-2012, 12:19 AM)Norbert Wrote: I see nothing more rational here than "nuh-uh".  What makes the opinion of people who view the NO as intrinsically evil better than the irritation and refusal of the TLM manifested in 16th century Germany.  More importantly, why does the opinion (reflected nowhere outside of Sede communities and [b]perhaps portions [/b]of the SSPX) that the NO is intrinsically evil/spiritually harmful hold such sway here when it can be demonstrably proven that there are trads like PtR and myself who receive spiritual benefit/consolation from it?  No one is denying the superiority of the TLM here. 

With all respect that is due Norbert, I am compelled to say that I do not bode well with indefinites or opinions not based on facts.
That aside. With respect to the FSSPX, they have not said that the NO mass is intrinsically evil.
Personally, I know the NO mass is doubtful and is a potential risk. But I will never say that it is intrinsically evil.
4 main risks: I am not saying that his will happen, I am saying the risk is there 100 times more this happening  in a NO mass than when attending any TLM.

1.- The ambiance= Irreverence to our Lord
2.- Liturgy: The abuses. The women Ministers, lectors, singers (now hear my high C !), the clapping, dancing, kissing, hand shakes, skirts, miniskirts, tattoos, shorts, sandals. There is more, but I'm getting tired.
3.- Doctrine: Nice sermon father, so can you repeat to me when are we allowed to extraordinarily attend a "Christian worship service"?  
Oh, when is the LGBT Catholic gathering again?   Buddhism is a extraordinary means of salvation? Cool!
4.- Doubt of intention of the priest. (Again, this is a risk. But due to the open doors for abuses in the NO, one can inferir infer that this risk is by and large in the NO)

Are there exceptions to attend an NO mass without the fear of risk and doubt: NEVER.
We drive 4 hours to get to TLM on Sunday (one way), There are plenty of NO parishes and chapels on the way.
I have children and one teenager. I have thought to myself, do I risk it and go to an NO. It's just 3 cuadras (blocks) away from my house.
Is the NO mass EVIL? NO. Is it a potential risk to my soul? it might. Depending on the mass. Do you want to risk your wife's and children's souls on that "might"?
If I have the means to go to the TLM, I go to the TLM.  
The moment that I found the TLM, the Catholic teachings (real doctrine. not watered down God is love teachings) I would be kidding myself to go back to a NO mass. I would be an accomplice to the irreverence in that mass.  Then how would I answer to Him at the end?

I gave you a car, a house,  I gave you a wife, I gave you 4 children to take care of. I made sure you knew found out about My son's sacrifice through the TLM.
And you went where?

I know He is not going to ask me how many things He gave me in this life. I know He will ask me, what did I use them for.

That's my own opinion.

Oh, here is a link to the stance on the New Mass from the FSSPX.
http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm
Admirable. I wish I had your "huevos", Tapatio.

My son goes to Catholic school and once a month they have the NO mass there. He is in pain during Mass.

Other than that, we go to the SSPX mass. It's TLM or bust for us.

Don't ever waiver on your beliefs Tapatio. God put the TLM in your path for a reason.



Reply
#45
(01-26-2012, 03:00 AM)Tapatio Wrote:
(01-26-2012, 12:19 AM)Norbert Wrote: I see nothing more rational here than "nuh-uh".  What makes the opinion of people who view the NO as intrinsically evil better than the irritation and refusal of the TLM manifested in 16th century Germany.  More importantly, why does the opinion (reflected nowhere outside of Sede communities and [b]perhaps portions [/b]of the SSPX) that the NO is intrinsically evil/spiritually harmful hold such sway here when it can be demonstrably proven that there are trads like PtR and myself who receive spiritual benefit/consolation from it?  No one is denying the superiority of the TLM here. 

With all respect that is due Norbert, I am compelled to say that I do not bode well with indefinites or opinions not based on facts.
That aside. With respect to the FSSPX, they have not said that the NO mass is intrinsically evil.
Personally, I know the NO mass is doubtful and is a potential risk. But I will never say that it is intrinsically evil.
4 main risks: I am not saying that his will happen, I am saying the risk is there 100 times more this happening  in a NO mass than when attending any TLM.

1.- The ambiance= Irreverence to our Lord
2.- Liturgy: The abuses. The women Ministers, lectors, singers (now hear my high C !), the clapping, dancing, kissing, hand shakes, skirts, miniskirts, tattoos, shorts, sandals. There is more, but I'm getting tired.
3.- Doctrine: Nice sermon father, so can you repeat to me when are we allowed to extraordinarily attend a "Christian worship service"?  
Oh, when is the LGBT Catholic gathering again?   Buddhism is a extraordinary means of salvation? Cool!
4.- Doubt of intention of the priest. (Again, this is a risk. But due to the open doors for abuses in the NO, one can inferir infer that this risk is by and large in the NO)

Are there exceptions to attend an NO mass without the fear of risk and doubt: NEVER.
We drive 4 hours to get to TLM on Sunday (one way), There are plenty of NO parishes and chapels on the way.
I have children and one teenager. I have thought to myself, do I risk it and go to an NO. It's just 3 cuadras (blocks) away from my house.
Is the NO mass EVIL? NO. Is it a potential risk to my soul? it might. Depending on the mass. Do you want to risk your wife's and children's souls on that "might"?
If I have the means to go to the TLM, I go to the TLM.  
The moment that I found the TLM, the Catholic teachings (real doctrine. not watered down God is love teachings) I would be kidding myself to go back to a NO mass. I would be an accomplice to the irreverence in that mass.  Then how would I answer to Him at the end?

I gave you a car, a house,  I gave you a wife, I gave you 4 children to take care of. I made sure you knew found out about My son's sacrifice through the TLM.
And you went where?

I know He is not going to ask me how many things He gave me in this life. I know He will ask me, what did I use them for.

That's my own opinion.

Oh, here is a link to the stance on the New Mass from the FSSPX.
http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm

Very admirable.
Reply
#46
(01-25-2012, 07:54 PM)TrentCath Wrote: The fruits of the NO are evident, loss of faith, irreverence to our lord, a blurring of the line between the priesthood and the laity, a loss of what it means to be priest, sacrilege and the 'auto-demolition of the church'. The fact it was designed to convey the message of Vatican II and to remove 'anything too catholic' is reason enough to be wary of it, let alone the in depth studies done on it as shown by 'The Ottaviani Intervention' to name but one.

The loss of faith, irreverence, line-blurring, and demolition have nothing to do with the actual words of the Rite of 1969. Note that the rubrics do not say "here, the music ministers pick up their guitars and strum", or "at this point the liturgical dance begins". The skeletal rite, the words themselves, imply nothing like that. How is the faith lost by the New Mass, of itself, when it affirms the Name of the Lord and His Church constantly? How can you possibly say there is irreverence in the New Mass when it prescribes more genuflections than the old? There is no blurring of lines if the priest acts and speaks like a priest, following the Missal. Note that the line is only blurred by priests who do not speak the actual words or follow the actual rubrics.

I'd say the practical abuses are more related to the worldwide individualist/democratic explosion of the 1960's, fueled by the teachings of absurdists, atheists, and late existentialists like Sartre, Russell, et. al., finally breaking out and affecting everything. Even the TLM would've been affected by the 70's - I firmly believe that. It seems more were lost because of their arrogance in refusing to accept Humanae Vitae (cuz it was the 60's and "we're better than that"), than because of the bad Mass celebrations.

You are criticizing the New Mass for destroying the faith in the same way that atheists criticize Christians for believing in a Cosmic Sky Wizard Sadist. What you mean by 'New Mass' and what pro-NO trads mean by the 'New Mass' is about the same as the other situation: what the atheists mean by 'God' and what we mean by 'God' are different. There can be no common ground of argument, because atheists attack the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Pink Teapot, or any number of things. It may not be the Mass itself, but the Pink Teapots and Flying Unicorns that rad-trads perceive, and hate.

Quote:Fact 1) The TLM was a codified form of a rite that had long prevailed and had developed organically

Yes, it developed organically... from the forms which were composed by John Chrysostom and Basil of Caesarea. They took individual traditions from many dioceses, coalescing them in their Divine Liturgy(ies). Apart from the Roman Canon, almost the whole "Mass of Ages" is lifted from the Byzantine Rite, pre-Gregory the Great. He was the one who removed the long Litany of Peace, instating the Kyrie we know. I believe the Divine Liturgies of Basil/Chrysostom/James are much more beautiful than the Roman Rite of any era, because the Latin Mass was gradually changed by individual popes through the centuries, always with some personal idea of  "what would be best for the Mass." The East never did this to the DL: they left it alone for the most part, which is why I am beginning to respect it more and more. None of this Western legalism that must tweak every sentence every decade. Same with the Office since the 1500's. Always a shortening. Always a coalescing. Always a brief....ening...  :LOL:

Quote:Fact 2) The NO is bodge job of random bits and pieces from everywhere
Fact 4) The TLM was designed to protect the mass from heresy and heterodoxy by tightening up the rubrics
Fact 5) The NO does the exact opposite despite the wide spread heresy and heterodoxy of our world
Fact 6)The TLM was designed to preserve the Catholic truth, the NO on the other hand was the instrument of a heterodox council infected by the spirit of liberalism and modernism
Fact 7) The NO is indisputably similar to Cranmers and Luthers mass's
Fact 8 ) The NO has within the last 40 years led to abuses that were unheard of in Church history.

2 ) Yes.

4-5 ) How, exactly?

6 ) Proof, please!

7 ) How are they similar? Cranmer's 'service' of the Eucharist has rubrics which refer to their communion as "bread" before the Institution Narrative, and "bread" after the consecration. The Novus Ordo insists that it remains a sacrifice, and calls it "bread" before the consecration, and "The Host" after the consecration. There is almost no similarity in the actual theology and intention...

8 ) Unheard of? How about the Goliards and other abusive, disobedient heretics through the ages? This is man's sinfulness, not some special New-Mass related thing, nor even a specifically 1960's-thing!

Quote:As for why the view of the NO being intrinsically sinful and flawed prevails, perhaps because its true!  :)

What the Apostles loose is loosed; what they bind is bound. How hard is this to understand? It is a valid Mass, as much as I dislike its deconstructionism and minimalism.

Quote:It is entirely irrelevant what consolation you do or don't get feel you get from the NO, feelings are irrelevant and frankly your statement smacks of modernism,

ROFL. Traditionalists constantly refer to the heavenly "atmosphere" at the TLM, the incense, the music, etc., as appealing to their emotions/feelings. This is either a strawman or an hypocrisy. Since I don't want to just assume you're a hypocrite, it is more likely to say you are making up an argument to justify your position.
Reply
#47
(01-26-2012, 01:50 PM)Laetare Wrote: The loss of faith, irreverence, line-blurring, and demolition have nothing to do with the actual words of the Rite of 1969. Note that the rubrics do not say "here, the music ministers pick up their guitars and strum", or "at this point the liturgical dance begins". The skeletal rite, the words themselves, imply nothing like that. How is the faith lost by the New Mass, of itself, when it affirms the Name of the Lord and His Church constantly? How can you possibly say there is irreverence in the New Mass when it prescribes more genuflections than the old? There is no blurring of lines if the priest acts and speaks like a priest, following the Missal. Note that the line is only blurred by priests who do not speak the actual words or follow the actual rubrics.

I will reply by quoting those who know far more about this than me '
Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Pope Paul VI
September 25th, 1969

Most Holy Father, Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.

Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour notice daily.

3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.

Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.

A. Card. Ottaviani
A. Card. Bacci
Brief Summary

I History of the Change
The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.

II Definition of the Mass
By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the 'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

III Presentation of the Ends
The three ends of the Mass are altered:- no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed.

IV The Essence
The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.

V The Elements of the Sacrifice
The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.

VI The Destruction of Unity
The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound.

VII: The Alienation of the Orthodox
While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East.

VIII The Abandonment of Defences
The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defences of the deposit of Faith.


I
History of the Change

In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was required to pass judgement on the experimental celebration of a so-called "normative Mass" (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" (New Mass) on the part of the Synod. Progressively-inclined papers made no mention of it. In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass" (New Mass), identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period the Episcopal Conference, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views about it.

In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal promulgated by St. Pius V, 13th July 1570, but going back in great part to St. Gregory the Great and still remoter antiquity, was for four centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part of the world, "it has moreover been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to many holy people in their devotion to God". Yet, the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was claimed to be necessary since "from that time the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more widespread and intensive among Christians".

This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when - thanks to Pius X - they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures of the liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of the changeless liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed.

The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use, together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller participation in, and great knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy, nor why, when its many outstanding virtues are recognised, this should not have been considered worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of Christians.


Rejected by Synod

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 judgement 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 makes it acceptable to the Catholic people.

The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire (para. 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 judgement already made with regard to the "normative" Mass. Both have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most Modernists of Protestants.
...

Suppression of Great Prayers

In the preparation of the offering, a similar equivocation results from the suppression of two great prayers. The "Deus qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti" was a reference to man's former condition of innocence and to his present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation of the whole economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present moment. The final propitiatory offering of the chalice, that it might ascend "cum adore suavitatis", into the presence of the divine majesty, whose clemency was implored, admirably reaffirmed this plan. By suppressing the continual reference of the Eucharistic prayers to God, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.

Having removed the keystone, the reformers have had to put up scaffolding; suppressing real ends, they had to substitute fictitious ends of their own; leading to gestures intended to stress to union of priest and faithful, and of the faithful among themselves; offerings for the poor and for the church superimposed upon the Offering of the Host to be immolated. There is a danger that the uniqueness of this offer will become blurred, so that participation in the immolation of the Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a charity banquet.
IV
The Essence


We now pass on to the essence of the Sacrifice.

The mystery of the Cross is no longer explicitly expressed. It is only there obscurely, veiled, imperceptible for the people. And for these reasons:

1. The sense given in the Novus Ordo to the so-called "prex Eucharistica" is: "that the whole congregation of the faithful may be united to Christ in proclaiming the great wonders of God and in offering sacrifice" (No. 54. the end)

Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer? No answer is given to either of these questions. The initial definition of the "prex Eucharistica" is as follows: "The centre and culminating point of the whole celebration now has a beginning, namely the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and of sanctification" (No. 54, pr.). The effects thus replace the causes, of which not one single word is said. The explicit mention of the object of the offering, which was found in the "Suscipe", has not been replaced by anything. The change in formulation reveals the change in doctrine.

2. The reason for this non-explicitness concerning the Sacrifice is quite simply that the Real Presence has been removed from the central position which it occupied so resplendently in the former Eucharistic liturgy. There is but a single reference to the Real Presence, (a quotation - a footnote - from the Council of Trent) and again the context is that of "nourishment" (no. 241, note 63)

The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is totally ignored.

The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity ("Veni Sanctificator") that He may descend upon the oblations, as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.

Note, too, the suppressions:


of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one, with certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration;
of the purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice;
of the preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after the Consecration; of the purification of the vessels, which need not be immediate, nor made on the corporal;
of the pall protecting the chalice;
of the internal gilding of sacred vessels;
of the consecration of movable altars;
of the sacred stone and relics in the movable altar or upon the "table" - "when celebration does not occur in sacred precincts" (this distinction leads straight to "Eucharistic suppers" in private houses);
of the three altar-cloths, reduced to one only;
of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of the priest and people, a logical enough complement to Communion standing);
of all the former prescriptions in the case of the consecrated Host falling, which are now reduced to a single, casual direction: "reventur accipiatur" (no. 239)
All these things only serve to emphasise how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.

3. The function assigned to the altar (no. 262). The altar is almost always called 'table', "The altar or table of the Lord, which is the centre of the whole Eucharistic liturgy" (no. 49, cf. 262). It is laid down that the altar must be detached from the walls so that it is possible to walk round it and celebration may be facing the people (no. 262); also that the altar must be the centre of the assembly of the faithful so that their attention is drawn spontaneously towards it (ibid). But a comparison of no. 262 and 276 would seem to suggest that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is excluded. This will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same presence brought about sacramentally. Before, they were 'one and the same presence'.
' and later on '2) The priest's position is minimised, changed and falsified. Firstly in relation to the people for whom he is, for the most part, a mere president, or brother, instead of the consecrated minister celebrating in persona Christi. Secondly in relation to the Church, as a "quidam de populo". In the definition of the epiclesis (no. 55), the invocations are attributed anonymously to the Church: the part of the priest has vanished.

In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no longer judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that his is no longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed. He is integrated with the fratres. Even the server address him as such in the Confiteor of the "Missa sine populo".

Already, prior to this latest reform, the significant distinction between the Communion of the priest - the moment in which the Eternal High Priest and the one acting in His Person were brought together in the closest union - and the Communion of the faithful has been suppressed.

Not a word do we now find as to the priest's power to sacrifice, or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.
' and again '


We come now to the realisation of the Sacrifice, the four elements of which were: 1) Christ, 2) the priest, 3) the Church, 4) the faithful present.

In the Novus Ordo, the position attributed to the faithful is autonomous (absoluta), hence totally false - from the opening definition: "Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi" to the priest's salutation to the people which is meant to convey to the assembled community the "presence" of the Lord (no. 48). "Qua salutatione et populi responsione manifestatur ecclesiae congregatae mysterium".

A true presence, certainly of Christ but only a spiritual one, and a mystery of the Church, but solely as an assembly manifesting and soliciting such a presence.

This interpretation is constantly underlined: by the obsessive references to the communal character of the Mass (nos. 74-152); by the unheard of distinction between "Mass with congregation" and "Mass without congregation" (nos. 203-231); by the definition of the "oratio universalis seu fidelium" (no. 45) where once more we find stressed the "sacerdotal office" of the people (populus sui sacerdotii munus excercens") presented in an equivocal way because its subordination to that of the priest is not mentioned, and all the more since the priest, as consecrated mediator, makes himself the interpreter of all the intentions of the people in the Te igitur and the two Memento.

In "Eucharistic Prayer III" ("Vere sanctus", p. 123) the following words are addressed to the Lord: "from age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name", the 'in order that' making it appear that the people rather than the priest are the indispensable element in the celebration; and since not even here is it made clear who the offerer is, the people themselves appear to be invested with autonomous priestly powers. From this step it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were authorised to join the priest in pronouncing the consecrating formulae (which actually seems here and there to have already occurred).


Priest as Mere President

2) The priest's position is minimised, changed and falsified. Firstly in relation to the people for whom he is, for the most part, a mere president, or brother, instead of the consecrated minister celebrating in persona Christi. Secondly in relation to the Church, as a "quidam de populo". In the definition of the epiclesis (no. 55), the invocations are attributed anonymously to the Church: the part of the priest has vanished.

In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no longer judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that his is no longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed. He is integrated with the fratres. Even the server address him as such in the Confiteor of the "Missa sine populo".

Already, prior to this latest reform, the significant distinction between the Communion of the priest - the moment in which the Eternal High Priest and the one acting in His Person were brought together in the closest union - and the Communion of the faithful has been suppressed.

Not a word do we now find as to the priest's power to sacrifice, or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.

The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments (in certain cases the alb and stole are sufficient - no. 298) obliterate even more the original conformity with Christ: the priest is no more clothed with all His virtues, become merely a "non-commissioned officer" whom one or two signs may distinguish from the mass of the people: "a little more a man than the rest", to quite the involuntarily humorous definition of a modern preacher. Again, as with the "table" and the Altar, there is separated what God has united: the sole Priesthood and the Word of God.

3) Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to Christ. In one case only, namely the "Mass without congregation", is the Mass acknowledged to be "Actio Christi et Ecclesiae" (no. 4, cf. Presb. Ord. no. 13), whereas in the case of the "Mass with congregation" this is not referred to except for the purpose of "remembering Christ" and sanctifying those present. The words used are: "In offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Ghost to God the Father, the priest associates the people with himself" (no. 60), instead one ones which would associate the people with Christ Who offers Himself "per Spiritum Sanctum Deo Patri".

In this context the follows are to be noted:

1) the very serious omission of the phrase "Through Christ Our Lord", the guarantee of being heard given to the Church in every age (John, XIV, 13-14; 15; 16; 23; 24);

2) the all pervading "paschalism", almost as though there were no other, quite different and equally important, aspects of the communication of grace;

3) the very strange and dubious eschatologism whereby the communication of supernatural grace, a reality which is permanent and eternal, is brought down to the dimensions of time: we hear of a people on the march, a pilgrim Church - no longer militant - against the Powers of Darkness - looking towards a future which having lost its line with eternity is conceived in purely temporal terms.

The Church - One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic - is diminished as such in the formula that, in the "Eucharistic Prayer No. 4", has taken the place of the prayer of the Roman Cannon "on behalf of all orthodox believers of the Catholic and apostolic faith". Now we have merely: "all who seek you with a sincere heart".

Again, in the Memento for the dead, these have no longer passed on "with the sign of faith and sleep the sleep of peace" but only "who have died in the peace of thy Christ", and to them are added, with further obvious detriment to the concept of visible unity, the host "of all the dead whose faith is known to you alone".

Furthermore, in none of three new Eucharistic prayers, is there any reference, as has already been said, to that state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento: all of this again, must undermine faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.


Desacralizing the Church

Desacralising omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church. Above all she is not presented as a sacred hierarchy: Angels and Saints are reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective Confiteor: they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in the person of St. Michael, for the first.

The various hierarchies of angels have also disappeared (and this is without precedent) from the new Preface of "Prayer II". In the Communicantes, reminder of the Pontiffs and holy martyrs on whom the Church of Rome is founded and who were, without doubt, the transmitters of the apostolic traditions, destined to be completed in what became, with St. Gregory, the Roman Mass, has been suppressed. In the Libera nos the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned: her and their intercession is thus no longer asked, even in time of peril.

The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly intolerable omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new Prayers, of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the Church of Rome, and the names of the other Apostles, foundation and mark of the one and universal Church, the only remaining mention being in the Communicantes of the Roman Canon.

A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the omission, when the priest is celebrating without a server, of all the salutations, and the final Blessing, not to speak of the 'Ite, missa est' now not even said in Masses celebrated with a server.

The double Confiteor showed how the priest, in his capacity of Christ's Minister, bowing down deeply and acknowledging himself unworthy of his sublime mission, of the "tremendum mysterium", about to be accomplished by him and even (in the Aufer a nobis) entering into the Holy of Holies, invoked the intercession (in the Oramus te, Domine) of the merits of the martyrs whose relics were sealed in the altar. Both these prayers have been suppressed; what has been said previously in respect of the double Confiteor and the double Communion is equally relevant here.

The outward setting of the Sacrifice, evidence of its sacred character, has been profaned. See, for example, what is laid down for celebration outside sacred precincts, in which the altar may be replaced by a simple "table" without consecrated stone or relics, and with a single cloth (nos. 260, 265). Here too all that has been previously said with regard to the Real Presence applies, the disassociation of the "convivium" and of the sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence Itself.

The process of desacralisation is completed thanks to the new procedures for the offering: the reference to ordinary not unleavened bread; altar-servers (and lay people at Communion sub utraque specie) being allowed to handle sacred vessels (no. 244d); the distracting atmosphere created by the ceaseless coming and going of the priest, deacon, subdeacon, psalmist, commentator (the priest becomes commentator himself from his constantly being required to 'explain' what he is about to accomplish) - of readings (men and women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to their places whilst others carry and sort offerings. And in the midst of all this prescribed activity, the 'mulier idonea' (anti-Scriptural and anti-Pauline) who for the first time in the tradition of the Church will be authorised to read the lessons and also perform other "ministeria quae extra presbyterium peraguntur" (no. 70).

Finally, there is the concelebration mania, which will end by destroying Eucharistic piety in the priest, by overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole Priest and Victim, in a collective presence of concelebrants.
'

All of the above comes from the 'The Ottaviani Intervention' which you may read here http://fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html



(01-26-2012, 01:50 PM)Laetare Wrote: I'd say the practical abuses are more related to the worldwide individualist/democratic explosion of the 1960's, fueled by the teachings of absurdists, atheists, and late existentialists like Sartre, Russell, et. al., finally breaking out and affecting everything. Even the TLM would've been affected by the 70's - I firmly believe that. It seems more were lost because of their arrogance in refusing to accept Humanae Vitae (cuz it was the 60's and "we're better than that"), than because of the bad Mass celebrations.

You are criticizing the New Mass for destroying the faith in the same way that atheists criticize Christians for believing in a Cosmic Sky Wizard Sadist. What you mean by 'New Mass' and what pro-NO trads mean by the 'New Mass' is about the same as the other situation: what the atheists mean by 'God' and what we mean by 'God' are different. There can be no common ground of argument, because atheists attack the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Pink Teapot, or any number of things. It may not be the Mass itself, but the Pink Teapots and Flying Unicorns that rad-trads perceive, and hate.

Total nonsense I am afraid. Your argument relies on me being the first person to say this and saying it 40 or so years down the line, however I am not, it was said way back even before the institution of the mass and this can be demonstrated amongst other things by 'The Ottaviani Intervention'.


(01-26-2012, 01:50 PM)Laetare Wrote: Yes, it developed organically... from the forms which were composed by John Chrysostom and Basil of Caesarea. They took individual traditions from many dioceses, coalescing them in their Divine Liturgy(ies). Apart from the Roman Canon, almost the whole "Mass of Ages" is lifted from the Byzantine Rite, pre-Gregory the Great. He was the one who removed the long Litany of Peace, instating the Kyrie we know. I believe the Divine Liturgies of Basil/Chrysostom/James are much more beautiful than the Roman Rite of any era, because the Latin Mass was gradually changed by individual popes through the centuries, always with some personal idea of  "what would be best for the Mass." The East never did this to the DL: they left it alone for the most part, which is why I am beginning to respect it more and more. None of this Western legalism that must tweak every sentence every decade. Same with the Office since the 1500's. Always a shortening. Always a coalescing. Always a brief....ening...  :LOL:
Rubbish. Read 'The Holy Mass' by Dom Prosper Gueranger, he disagrees with you completely and being a renowned liturgist and a genius I agree with him more than you.


(01-26-2012, 01:50 PM)Laetare Wrote:
Quote:Fact 2) The NO is bodge job of random bits and pieces from everywhere
Fact 4) The TLM was designed to protect the mass from heresy and heterodoxy by tightening up the rubrics
Fact 5) The NO does the exact opposite despite the wide spread heresy and heterodoxy of our world
Fact 6)The TLM was designed to preserve the Catholic truth, the NO on the other hand was the instrument of a heterodox council infected by the spirit of liberalism and modernism
Fact 7) The NO is indisputably similar to Cranmers and Luthers mass's
Fact 8 ) The NO has within the last 40 years led to abuses that were unheard of in Church history.

2 ) Yes.

4-5 ) How, exactly?
By preventing priests or areas which had been influenced by heterodox ideas from modifying the mass. The NO however has much looser rubrics and so encourages creativity, the exact opposite of what the TLM does.

(01-26-2012, 01:50 PM)Laetare Wrote: 6 ) Proof, please!

Do you deny that the NO was drawn up to comply with the wishes of the 2nd Vatican Council?

'....The recent Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in promulgating the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, established the basis for the general revision of the Roman Missal: in declaring "both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify";(4) in ordering that "the rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished";(5) in prescribing that "the treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's Word";(6) in ordering, finally, that "a new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and incorporated into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal."(7)...According to the prescription of the Second Vatican Council which prescribes that "a more representative portion of the Holy Scriptures will be read to the people over a set cycle of years,"(13) and of the readings for Sunday are divided into a cycle of three years. In addition, for Sunday and feasts, the readings of the Epistle and Gospel are preceded by a reading from the Old Testament or, during Paschaltide, from the Acts of the Apostles. In this way the dynamism of the mystery of salvation, shown by the text of divine revelation, is more clearly accentuated. These widely selected biblical readings, which give to the faithful on feast days the most important part of Sacred Scripture, is completed by access to the other parts of the Holy Books read on other days.

All this is wisely ordered in such a way that there is developed more and more among the faithful a "hunger for the Word of God,"(14) which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, leads the people of the New Covenant to the perfect unity of the Church. We are fully confident that both priests and faithful will prepare their hearts more devoutly and together at the Lord's Supper, meditating more profoundly on Sacred Scripture, and at the same time they will nourish themselves more day by day with the words of the Lord. It will follow then that according to the wishes of the Second Vatican Council, Sacred Scripture will be at the same time a perpetual source of spiritual life, an instrument of prime value for transmitting Christian doctrine and finally the center of all theology......
' Missale Romanum

'The Novus Ordo Missae was the achievement par excellence, the masterpeice of this Consilium, which had created it with the active cooperation of six heretics, the six who can be seen in the photograph to the right of the Holy Father... Not only are these six heretical individuals heretics personally, but they are there in their official capacity as such. La Documentation Catholique makes this clear in note 1 to page 416... The Novus Ordo Missae was not simply concoted in collaboration and in agreement with six people possessing expert knowledge, individually chosen for their international reputation or their good looks and who by chance as it were, also happened to be heretics. No. The NOM was concoted in connivance with six official representatives of a number of heresies and convoked specifically in this capacity to organise our liturgical renewal...' (Jean Madarin quoted in 'Pope Pauls New Mass' by Michael Davies. The book goes on to state 'On page 417 of the same edition of La Documentation Catholique, Pope Paul is reported as expressing thanks to the members of the Consilium for the manner in which they had "...re-edited in a new manner liturgical texts tried and tested by long usage or introduced formulas which were completely new" '  (Pope Pauls New Mass pages 258-59.

One has only to compare the criticisms of these two documents with Vatican 2 and its interpretation by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II to see how the mass reflects the desires of V2.

(01-26-2012, 01:50 PM)Laetare Wrote: 7 ) How are they similar? Cranmer's 'service' of the Eucharist has rubrics which refer to their communion as "bread" before the Institution Narrative, and "bread" after the consecration. The Novus Ordo insists that it remains a sacrifice, and calls it "bread" before the consecration, and "The Host" after the consecration. There is almost no similarity in the actual theology and intention...
There are parallels as Michael Davies aptly pointed out in his famous 'Cranmers Godly Order'
(01-26-2012, 01:50 PM)Laetare Wrote: 8 ) Unheard of? How about the Goliards and other abusive, disobedient heretics through the ages? This is man's sinfulness, not some special New-Mass related thing, nor even a specifically 1960's-thing!
You have hit the nail on the head. It was practiced by disobedient heretics, can the Church suddenly declare that these things are not heretical but in fact permitted? Again I refer you to the Ottaviani intervention.


(01-26-2012, 01:50 PM)Laetare Wrote: What the Apostles loose is loosed; what they bind is bound. How hard is this to understand? It is a valid Mass, as much as I dislike its deconstructionism and minimalism.
True but as any good Catholic knows the Church's powers are limited, you are fundamentally mistaken about and ignorant of The Catholic Faith if you believe that Christ gave the Church power to impose practices that endanger souls, contradict scripture or the sacraments or to destroy the Church.


(01-26-2012, 01:50 PM)Laetare Wrote: ROFL. Traditionalists constantly refer to the heavenly "atmosphere" at the TLM, the incense, the music, etc., as appealing to their emotions/feelings. This is either a strawman or an hypocrisy. Since I don't want to just assume you're a hypocrite, it is more likely to say you are making up an argument to justify your position.

It is neither modernism tried to reduce all religion and dogma to the 'religious experience', that is the problem. Aside from this you make 2 bold presumptions:
1)That Traditionalists believe that the TLM is valid or better because of their experience at it, and
2)That I agree with the above

Both are wrong. The reasons for it being the 'True Mass' are theological and dogmatic.
Reply
#48
(01-26-2012, 03:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote: ...

I will reply by quoting those who know far more about this than me '
Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Pope Paul VI
September 25th, 1969

....

All of the above comes from the '[i]The Ottaviani Intervention'
which you may read here http://fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

...

I have been told that the Ottaviani Intervention was presented to the Pope before the Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated, and that, based on that, changes were made before promulgation, such that Cardinal Ottaviani withdrew his objections.

Is anybody familiar with this story, and is it true?
Reply
#49
(01-26-2012, 03:12 PM)NOtard Wrote:
(01-26-2012, 03:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote: ...

I will reply by quoting those who know far more about this than me '
Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Pope Paul VI
September 25th, 1969

....

All of the above comes from the '[i]The Ottaviani Intervention'
which you may read here http://fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

...

I have been told that the Ottaviani Intervention was presented to the Pope before the Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated, and that, based on that, changes were made before promulgation, such that Cardinal Ottaviani withdrew his objections.

Is anybody familiar with this story, and is it true?

Minor changes, but if you read the criticisms of the document and compare them to the NO we have today, almost all of them apply, the document has not aged, it is as relevant now as it was then.
Reply
#50
As regards the relationship between the Council and the NO (which is really undeniable) the following is relevant 'The consilium for Liturgical reform instituted on February 26, 1964, was chaired by Cardinal Lercaro and run by Fr. Bungini. It soon began the 'revision' asked for by the council....In doing this he applied the guiding principle of '[i]Sacrosanctum Concilium as put forth before the Council by Fr. Ferdinando Antonelli' [/i] (The Biography Marcel Lefebvre the section cites 'Il card. Ferdnando Antonelli e gli sviluppi della riforma liturgica del 1948 al 1970' by Nicola Giampietro, O.F.M. as evidence.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)